Next Article in Journal
The Future of Agriculture: Obstacles and Improvement Measures for Chinese Cooperatives to Achieve Sustainable Development
Previous Article in Journal
A Communication, Management and Tracking Mobile Application for Enhancing Earthquake Preparedness and Situational Awareness in the Event of an Earthquake
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 2
10.3390/su15020973
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Investigating Engineering Instructor Characteristics Associated with English Medium Instruction and Their Influence on Intrinsic Motivation

by
Norah Almusharaf
1,*,
Daniel Bailey
2,* and
Hugo Rodrigue
3
1
Linguistics and Translation Department, College of Humanities and Sciences, Prince Sultan University, Riyadh 11586, Saudi Arabia
2
Department of English Language and Culture, Konkuk University Glocal Campus, Chungju 27478, Republic of Korea
3
School of Mechanical Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 16419, Republic of Korea
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(2), 973; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15020973
Submission received: 9 November 2022 / Revised: 12 December 2022 / Accepted: 29 December 2022 / Published: 5 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Education and Approaches)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study explores how instructors view the current state of English medium instruction (EMI) in terms of the existence of EMI engineering courses, how EMI influences instructor motivations, and how motivation constructs influence the intrinsic motivation to teach EMI courses. Explanatory variables regarding intrinsic motivations included the use of the Korean language (L1) when teaching EMI courses, EMI teacher self-efficacy, EMI teacher anxiety, and perceived student benefits for English acquisition when attending EMI courses. The influence of demographic variables (i.e., age, teaching experience, experience living overseas, and second-language proficiency) on intrinsic motivation was also identified. Ultimately, a cross-sectional research design was conducted with a group of 54 engineering professors at a South Korean university. Mean score and correlation analyses provided an initial view of the data. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to determine the explanatory variables’ influence on the intrinsic motivation to teach EMI courses. Several significant relationships in the model were identified. The results showed that the surveyed professors have high self-efficacy in teaching EMI courses, which corresponds with low anxiety levels. Furthermore, the professors reported the frequent and varied strategic use of their first language, L1 (i.e., Korean), when teaching EMI courses. Generally, professors with low self-efficacy in their English will use their own language (L1) more frequently than their more confident counterparts. Self-efficacy, anxiety, and the perceived benefits for students were significant predictors of their intrinsic motivation to teach EMI courses. The pedagogical implications are briefly discussed, and methods for preparing the EMI course instructors are recommended.

1. Introduction

Countries such as South Korea first implemented English medium instruction (EMI) for content courses (e.g., science and engineering) to bolster university ratings and improve intercultural communication skills among graduating students. Administrative policies have forced instructors to use English to accomplish their academic objectives. There are growing appeals for the internationalization of education and the importance of English medium instruction, which advocates for teaching disciplinary subjects, such as engineering, mathematics, or history, while using English as a second language (ESL) within secondary and higher education (Brown and Bradford, 2017) [1]. Recent theoretical developments have revealed that English medium instruction is critical to the language development of Korean students. Studies have shown that while Korean is the dominant language outside the academic context, students increasingly use English in social settings (Ahn, 2022) [2]. However, instructors have mixed views regarding teaching, their students, and their courses when they are compelled to teach in English.
Since the early 2000s, the Korean Ministry of Education has firmly promoted the use of EMI courses and lectures, from elementary level to higher education, in Korea (Ha, 2011 [3]; Kang, 2008 [4]). In the field of English language teaching, the term EMI is commonly used to refer to educational policy, while European content and language-integrated learning encouraged the emergence of language education methods, including bilingual education, language immersion, content-based instruction, and language across the curriculum. EMI has been practiced in Europe and other countries teaching English as a foreign language (EFL), assuming that frequent exposure to the target language aids language learning (Kang, 2008) [4]. Furthermore, EMI is popular in countries such as South Korea since English is the language of international trade, science, and engineering (Corrales et al., 2016) [5]. EMI courses promote international and intercultural competence. EMI students are expected to benefit from gaining knowledge and appreciation of other cultures and increase their capacity to interact with others comfortably (Corrales et al., 2016) [5].
Worldwide, universities have financial motives to offer courses in English. Teaching courses in the English language, along with courses in science and technology, help to attract international students, and the respective governments provide certain incentives to their own country’s universities or departments for accomplishing specific English education goals (Hong, 2022) [6]. Furthermore, such universities can attract highly skilled professors who have been educated at Western universities and who are prepared to teach science and engineering courses in English. However, some difficulties are related to students’ limited vocabulary, slow reading speeds, and poor oral comprehension when using English in EMI courses.
Despite its advantages, EMI is negatively viewed by some professors, especially ones who have insufficient English skills due to the extra time required to explain important class information. Likewise, students strive to attend universities, only to encounter language barriers in content courses. A challenging problem that arises in this domain is different professors’ attitudes reported toward EMI in various disciplines; therefore, it is critical to investigate how professors in each academic discipline perceive EMI, define the roles of the local language and identify what support they need to implement EMI policies in practice. The following research questions were posited to better understand the motivation behind instructors choosing or not choosing to teach EMI, how the backgrounds of these instructors relate to those motivations, and how these beliefs influence their intention to teach EMI courses.
  • What are the magnitudes and associations among English self-efficacy, anxiety, intrinsic motivation, affordances, and the use of the instructors’ first language when teaching EMI courses?
  • What influence do instructor characteristics have on the intrinsic motivation for teaching EMI courses?

2. Literature Review

The theoretical framework for this study posits that EMI contributes to second-language acquisition because students attending EMI courses have an added opportunity to use English as a second or foreign language. EMI has been discovered to be useful to both instructors and students in terms of engagement in communicative interactions (Ha, 2011 [3]; Hong, 2022) [6]. It has been argued that the main objective of L2 learning is to establish a willingness to communicate during the learning process (Macintyre et al., 1998 [7]). Skehan (1989) [8] said that “learners have to talk in order to learn” (p. 48). However, according to Jon et al. (2020) [9] some Korean students have low levels of involvement during classes, due to a lack of understanding that eventually affects their grades. Some professors expressed their disappointment in the lack of flexibility when teaching in English and described it as monotonous, thereby constraining learning gains. This issue occurs when non-native English-speaking professors teach English to non-native English-speaking students, which means that both instructors and students lack sufficient proficiency in the language in the academic setting (Byun et al., 2011) [10].
The implementation of EMI in South Korea is, very much, still in progress; the findings of Byun et al. (2011) [10] showed that the proportion of EMI classes are expected to increase to 50 percent by 2012, partly with the intention of increasing the number of foreign students. Williams (2015) [11] stated that the “rapid implementation” of EMI necessitates that the younger generation of instructors is more prepared to teach in English. Consequently, universities are focusing on the importance of communication with other instructors or students to acquire skills and cultural knowledge as a result of learning new languages.
English for learning and teaching has been the trend at the university level since 2010 (Smit and Dafouz, 2012) [12]. Universities in South Korea offer content courses in English to bolster each university’s international reputation, increase university rankings, and promote cultural awareness (Mortensen and Haberland, 2012) [13]. The Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), a top-tier science and engineering university in South Korea, implemented a policy to offer all classes in English to freshmen in 2007 (Park, 2009) [14]. Similarly, Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH), another top-tier engineering school in South Korea, has taught over 90 percent of its courses in English since 2010. Other universities offering a significant proportion of courses in English include Seoul National University, Korea University, and Yonsei University (Jambor, 2011) [15]. Increased revenue from international students is one reason that universities compel instructors to teach EMI courses (Byun and Kim, 2011) [16]. Korean universities are subject to recruitment quotas for domestic students from the government; recruiting international students can be used to increase the number of students beyond this quota and thus bolster the school’s income (Kim, 2021) [17].
In the context of globalization in education, using English when teaching a subject at the graduate and post-graduate levels is a parameter of interest for universities (Başıbek et al., 2014) [18]. Shimauchi’s (2018) [19] study recognized that many non-English-speaking countries are introducing EMI as an alternative in their educational programs. Altbach and Knight (2007) [20] have pointed out that Middle Eastern higher education institutions are creating alliances with English-speaking universities in the United States and the United Kingdom to pool international students and encourage international investments. Shimauchi (2018) [19] has identified that at the higher education level, the quantity of courses in English offered by a university is frequently cited as a straightforward and effective indicator of the internationalization of an institution.
Prior research suggests that universities that provide EMI courses must also pay close attention to their students’ language instruction (Hong, 2022) [6]. The goal of English-language programs should be to raise students’ academic and communication skills to the point where they can actively participate in debates in English about their profession (Corrales et al., 2016) [5].

2.1. Instructor Motivation for Using EMI

EMI courses are not without criticism. Asking instructors to teach EMI courses is difficult due to the extra time needed for preparing content and explaining complex ideas in a foreign language (Briggs et al., 2018) [21]. EMI has come under severe scrutiny over the years for requiring increased preparation time. Further, EMI is a weakness for teachers and students with low English proficiency. Consequently, low English proficiency among instructors leads to a decreased frequency of classroom interactions (Hu and Duan, 2018) [22]. In addition to language proficiency among professors, cost is another contributing factor in terms of complications with instituting EMI courses. To offset the costs pertaining to time and energy, some schools provide financial incentives or waive teaching-hour requirements for instructors who volunteer to teach EMI courses (Yeh, 2012) [23]. Lacking language proficiency and the increased time necessary to prepare EMI courses negatively impact the teacher’s motivation.
EMI studies reveal apprehensions among professors when it comes to teaching EMI courses. Jon et al. (2020) [9] interviewed 13 Korean professors at two private universities and found that the professors’ perceptions toward EMI were generally negative. Professors were unsure why they needed to teach EMI and even felt uncomfortable doing so (Corrales et al., 2016) [5]. Moreover, EMI instructors experienced less collaboration than those teaching in their own language (L1).
Overall, some instructors felt limited in their teaching ability when forced to follow the EMI policy (Jon et al., 2020) [9]. Kim and Tatar’s (2017) [24] mixed-methods study entailed a survey study of 91 Korean professors and a follow-up interview conducted with a subgroup of 15 professors. Kim and Tatar’s (2017) [24] EMI study in South Korea found that the faculty held negative views regarding EMI courses; this was partly attributed to the poor levels of communication among Korean and international students. The more the Korean students needed assistance given in L1 during EMI, the less interaction with the international students occurred. Kim and Tatar (2017) [24] evidenced a great need for the use of L1 in EMI courses due to time management issues. Other negative feelings were expressed toward EMI due to the resulting increased workload (Byun et al., 2011) [10].

2.2. Teaching EMI Courses

Several factors have an influence on establishing and teaching effective EMI courses. For the successful implementation of EMI, three core factors should be considered: the professors’ and students’ English proficiency, subject difficulty, and administrative support. Williams’s (2015) [11] systematic review found more challenges than opportunities for instructors and students and partly attributed this to the overly rapid implementation of the EMI policy. Recognized demands related to the difficulty level of the content taught. Certain difficulties that were expressed included students struggling to take notes during EMI teaching and instructors feeling pressured into teaching EMI (Williams, 2015) [11]. Additionally, it has been found that younger professors are more prepared to teach EMI courses (Jensen and Thøgersen, 2011) [25] and that EMI professors are not responsible for correcting linguistic errors since their role is to teach the content of the class itself (e.g., subjects related to science and engineering) (Aguilar, 2015) [26].
Often, instructors must take on the role of an EFL instructor and teach complex subjects with simple, “dumbed-down”, vocabulary. Professors use their L1 and spend more time preparing lessons when teaching EMI courses (Jon et al., 2020) [9]. The reasoning behind using their L1 in EMI courses includes helping non-native English-speaking students who are not proficient in English. Their use of L1 may entail teaching half the class, answering questions, or summarizing complex ideas in the class’s native language.
The combination of using L1 and L2 is a common practice when teaching EMI courses. Yeh (2012) [23] identified how and when instructors used their first language during EMI courses. The results revealed that instructors expressed essential information, such as content related to assignments and exams, in L1 to give students the ability to clearly understand the material being taught in English. For instance, instructors may use L1 at the beginning of the course and at its end to preview or summarize the learning objectives and content.
Previous studies on the influences of EMI frequently find that the English proficiency of students and instructors is a significant predictor for determining the outcomes of EMI courses (Curle et al., 2020) [27]. Non-native English-speaking professors who completed some of their education abroad have an advantage when teaching EMI since they had a background in learning English in a native English-speaking country. This experience of studying in countries such as the United States and England makes the transition from student to EMI instructor more natural (Yeh, 2012) [23].
The added effort made by instructors may go unappreciated. EMI instructors should provide course materials in the L2 and so will spend extra office hours on supplementary instruction. Regardless of the extra effort put into preparing and teaching EMI, low-proficiency L2 students are often dissatisfied, and instructors feel that students attending EMI courses are not learning the content of the course or even improving their English (Jon et al., 2020) [9].

2.3. Anxiety When Teaching EMI

The pressure of teaching EMI courses caused the surveyed instructors to suffer from a phenomenon called “foreign language anxiety”, or “English anxiety”, which led the professors to perceive EMI from a negative perspective. Based on the findings of Jon et al. (2020) [9], most professors were not able to teach their subject in English in the same way as in Korean, sometimes because of the lack of English language competence and proficiency from both students and professors, which led them to lack flexibility because they could not tell jokes or lecture as freely as they would in their own language. During classes, some professors would also pause or make intermittent breaks in their speech, which led them to tense up when using English. Moreover, some instructors pointed out that the EMI structure made them feel that their identities had vanished.
Teaching EMI courses causes stress and anxiety for instructors since they are required to teach in a foreign language, in addition to managing university programs and writing academic papers. Liu and Wu (2021) [28] stated in their research that in China, English courses were mandatory in all universities, and their study pointed out that the main reasons behind instructors’ language anxiety were nervousness and a lack of confidence when speaking English. Liu and Wu’s (2021) [26] research echoed studies by Bekleyen (2009) [29], Machida (2015) [30], Yoon (2012) [31], and Merç (2011) [32], which found that teachers were apprehensive about speaking English when conducting EMI classes, and were worried about their English language efficiency and competence.

2.4. Success Outcomes

How exactly EMI influences improvement in English proficiency is unclear. Regarding English skill gains in EMI courses, Corrales et al. (2016) [5] found that 40 percent of students surveyed did not feel that their English improved as a result of attending EMI courses, and this was partly attributed to the lack of corrective feedback offered on English mistakes during class. Some EMI instructors are not interested in or prepared to teach EFL. Instead, such instructors are ultimately concerned with the context of the course they teach. For instance, the focus of Corrales et al.’s (2016) [5] computer-based learning model was utterly on the content of the course, not on the language in which it was taught. One professor in the study stated that he “would be worried if students cared about language development” (p. 332) since his was a computer class and students should be more concerned with the context of the course, not the language used to teach it. Regarding the language skills gained, students valued EMI for acquiring technical vocabulary related to their major and for improving their listening skills (Corrales et al., 2016) [5].
Empirical research has identified the advantages of EMI in terms of students’ learning outcomes and instructors’ performances, including cultural awareness, financial rewards, and internationalization for students attending universities with an affinity for EMI courses (Macaro et al., 2018) [33]. Although researchers have demonstrated the benefits of EMI, previous studies seem to suggest that the possible positive effects of EMI are not achieved, at least not within the context of certain institutions or countries. This study attempts to fill certain gaps pertaining to how EMI instructors perceive the inclusion of EMI courses and how their EMI beliefs influence their intention to teach such courses.

3. Methods

The current study emanates from a questionnaire given to an engineering department’s faculty in South Korea during the spring semester of 2022. Following a cross-sectional research design, this study investigated the magnitude of, and associations among, key variables connected to the instructor’s perceptions of EMI. A cross-sectional research design is used to illustrate the connections among interconnecting variables at a specific point in time and place. For this study, the time occurred immediately after South Korean University students returned to offline classes after the COVID-19 pandemic.
A convenience sampling technique was used to recruit and survey participating instructors. In all, 54 engineering professors were recruited from a prominent university in South Korea. All but one of the professors were male, and all had obtained at least a doctorate. The professors ranged from 29 to 64 years old (M = 46.7, SD = 8.9). Four professors had less than one year of experience living overseas, 12 had between one and three years of overseas experience, and the remaining 38 had over three years of experience living overseas, indicating significant familiarity with living and studying abroad. In total, 15 professors earned one degree overseas while 22 earned two degrees in an English-speaking country, and 4 professors earned three degrees in English-speaking countries. A single item asking professors to rate their English proficiency on a scale from 1 (low) to 10 (high) was used to identify the levels of English among the participants. Albeit a simple measure, self-rated proficiency measures are found to be valid and reliable (Bailey [34], Kao and Reynolds, 2017 [35]; Lee, 2018 [36]). The result was that professors’ self-ratings ranged from three to ten and the mean score fell to 7.45 (SD = 1.34), indicating relatively above-average levels of self-perceived language expertise.

3.1. Course Environment

Engineering classes typically follow a lecture framework in which the instructor introduces the key terms, formulas, and applications related to complex systems. Instructors meet with students and work out problems related to a particular engineering topic. In this instance, English is used for a specific purpose (ESP) rather than communicative purposes. Engineering courses are centered around the main lecture class, in which students meet with the instructor twice a week for 75 min in each class, and professors are expected to teach these classes in English. Specific courses require laboratory classes consisting of a mixture of teaching, experiments, and projects, with some portions of the classes taught by the professor and others taught by graduate students. The segments taught by graduate students are supposed to be taught in English but are sometimes taught in the students’ L1 (i.e., Korean) if the graduate student cannot teach in English and in the absence of international students. For lectures, professors use science and engineering textbooks that have been written in English. A typical class entails introducing concepts about the learning objectives and problem-based learning. The professor works collaboratively with the students, answering questions related to the course.

3.2. Study Questionnaire

Questionnaire construction occurred in three phases. In the first phase, a database of items relating to the variables of interest was collected by reviewing the published EMI literature. Once a sufficient number of potential items were collected, the acting researchers conducted a series of consultations to decide on the appropriate scales and their corresponding items.
The study’s questionnaire was separated into two parts. The first part collected background information on the participating professors and included age, teaching experience, experience living abroad, and second-language proficiency. The second part includes the scales measuring the study’s variables (Table 1).

3.2.1. Intrinsic Motivation to Teach EMI Classes

Items measuring intrinsic motivation levels (i.e., joy at teaching EMI) were influenced by Ryan’s (1982) [37] and Ryan and Deci’s (2000) [38] studies on motivation. An original item from the interest/enjoyment scale on the intrinsic motivation inventory (McAuley et al., 1989) [39] states, “I enjoyed doing this activity very much”, while the modified version reads, “I enjoy teaching English medium instruction courses”. The self-reporting of interest and enjoyment in an activity is a common approach to measuring intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation in the current study is domain-specific and strictly refers to the students’ joy at learning English when professors are teaching EMI courses. Intrinsic motivation is defined here as one’s joy or interest in an activity (i.e., teaching EMI courses) for the activity’s sake. The study’s intrinsic motivation scale included an item to measure the specific indicators referenced in Ryan and Deci’s (2000) [38] taxonomy of human motivation: enjoyment, preference, and satisfaction.

3.2.2. Self-Efficacy Using English in EMI Classes

Items measuring English self-efficacy were drawn from previous self-efficacy studies measuring participants’ confidence in accomplishing classroom objectives (e.g., Bailey and Lee, 2021 [40]; Bong and Skaalvik, 2003 [41]). Academic self-efficacy refers to one’s perceived mastery level of an activity. These items were modified to specifically reference the instructor’s confidence in using English when teaching EMI courses.

3.2.3. Anxiety When Using English during EMI Classes

Items measuring anxiety referred to cognitive anxiety (e.g., mental apprehension about teaching EMI courses) and were taken and modified from Horwitz et al.’s (1986) [42] foreign language classroom anxiety scale. An original item states, “I am worried that my teacher will not understand my English during class”, while a modified item states, “I am worried that students will not understand my English during English lectures”.

3.2.4. Korean Use during EMI Classes

Lastly, an in-house developed scale measured the use of the instructors’ L1 (i.e., Korean) during EMI courses. These items referenced when and how professors used Korean to help accomplish learning and teaching objectives. All items were scored on a five-point Likert scale (1 = never to 5 = always) and are presented in Table 1.
Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from 0.674 to 0.936 (see Table 1). A frequently cited acceptable range of Cronbach’s alpha is a value of 0.70 or above, which is derived from the work of Nunnally (1978) [43]; however, values as low as 0.60 are considered acceptable (Hair et al., 2010) [44].

3.3. Procedures

Participating instructors were informed of the nature of the study and given instructions on how to complete the questionnaire. Professors were told that all results would be confidential and stored in a password-protected location and that they could opt out of having their answers included in the study if they wished. Participating professors completed the questionnaire online, through the survey platform, Google Forms (forms.google.com). Translation of the items was carried out upon the final selection of the survey items. Initially, a translator with a graduate degree in translation studies carried out the initial translations. Then, a research assistant with translation experience carried out the second round of translations, and discrepancies between the translations were identified, discussed, and resolved.

3.4. Data Analysis

All statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS (Version 27.0). Item-by-item mean score analysis was carried out for the respective variables of Research Question 1. A combination of mean score and Pearson correlation analysis was carried out for Research Question 2. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to answer Research Question 3. Variables of interest were added as explanatory variables, and the intrinsic motivation for teaching EMI was added as the dependent variable. Furthermore, a one-sample t-test with a sample value of 3 was used to help explain the magnitude of the instructor’s perceptions concerning EMI.

4. Results

4.1. Research Question 1

Research Question 1 identified the mean scores and relationships among instructor characteristics and their motivations regarding the teaching of EMI courses. Table 2 shows the mean scores and Pearson correlation results for the variables of interest. Regarding mean scores, self-efficacy in teaching EMI produced the highest mean score, indicating that the participating instructors in the current study felt that they were well-prepared to teach EMI courses. Self-efficacy in teaching EMI courses produced the most significant relationships with the other variables, indicating that confident professors had more experience living abroad, reported higher levels of English proficiency, reported lower levels of anxiety and held more intrinsic motivation.
Relationships regarding anxiety when teaching EMI courses and other variables were in the expected directions. As the anxiety experienced when teaching EMI courses increased, instructors reported less confidence in teaching, greater use of Korean in the classroom, less intrinsic motivation, and less experience in living abroad. Overall, professors felt that EMI courses offered moderate benefits to English language skills. Professors who reported higher levels of intrinsic motivation for teaching EMI found that EMI boosts the development of English skills.
Age did not display any relationships with the other observed variables, indicating that neither younger nor older professors had an advantage in terms of their perceived abilities to teach EMI courses. Contrarily, self-reported English levels were proportionally aligned in a statistically significant positive direction with experience in living overseas (r = 0.408 **) and had a further statistically significant relationship with English self-efficacy (r = 0.41 **). To a lesser extent, self-reported English proficiency was related to intrinsic motivation beliefs in teaching EMI courses (r = 0.30 *). Experience living abroad approached a statistically significant negative correlation with the use of Korean during EMI courses. Korean use during EMI instruction was not associated with English proficiency level, indicating the strategic use of code-switching and other Korean-use strategies when teaching EMI courses among intermediate and highly proficient English-speaking professors. One last noteworthy correlation pertains to increasing English anxiety with the increasing use of the Korean language.
To better understand the magnitude of the motivation constructs, a series of one-sample t-tests were calculated. Table 3 displays the result from a one-sample t-test using a median sample value of 3 for the comparison. Overall, Korean professors were confident in their ability to teach EMI courses. Likewise, professors reported low levels of anxiety related to using English and being understood by students when teaching EMI courses. Furthermore, professors reported that it was essential to use Korean when teaching EMI courses (e.g., summarizing lessons or translating complex terms), and while limited in affordances, professors felt that EMI courses benefited students’ English skills.

4.2. Research Question 2

Correlation and mean score analysis from answering Research Question 1 provides a valuable summary of the direction and strength of the relationship between two or more variables. Going further, research question two proceeds to use regression analysis to explain the influence that instructor characteristics have on intrinsic motivation when teaching EMI. Multiple linear regression was used to examine the influence of EMI variables on intrinsic motivation to teach EMI. Table 4 displays standardized beta weights and significant values from the regression model. The regression model predicted the level of intrinsic motivation based on age, L2 proficiency level, experience living abroad, teaching experience, self-efficacy teaching EMI, anxiety when teaching EMI, Korean use when teaching EMI, and the benefits that EMI offers for L2 acquisition for students. For the regression model, a significant regression equation was found (F(8, 44) = 6.648, p < 0.001 **), with an adjusted R2 of 0.547. The current model explained approximately 55 percent of instructors’ intrinsic motivation for teaching EMI courses. The statistically significant predictors were self-efficacy when teaching EMI (B = 0.428, p = 0.001 **), anxiety when teaching EMI (B = −0.370, p = 0.010 **), and the benefits that EMI has for English acquisition (B = 0.340, p = 0.003 **). Demographic variables (i.e., age, L2 proficiency, experience abroad, and teaching experience) for the EMI course instructors in this study did not indicate the levels of intrinsic motivation, while motivational factors and language achievement outcome factors were statistically significant predictors for intrinsic motivation (i.e., joy) when teaching EMI courses.

5. Discussion

This study investigates South Korean university engineering professors’ beliefs about MI and how those beliefs influence their intrinsic motivation to teach EMI courses. The study yields increasingly good results pertaining to their outlook regarding English medium instruction. Several significant relationships among the variables of interest were identified. The findings revealed that the surveyed professors have high confidence levels when teaching EMI courses, which coordinated with low anxiety levels. Similarly, professors reported regular and varied use of their L1 (i.e., Korean) when teaching EMI courses. Regarding the regression analysis identified in Research Question 2, students’ self-efficacy, anxiety, and the perceived advantages were significant predictors of intrinsic motivation to teach EMI courses.
Answering Research Question 1 (What are the magnitudes and associations among English self-efficacy, anxiety, intrinsic motivation, affordances, and use of the instructors’ first language when teaching EMI courses?) shows that the magnitude and the associations among English self-efficacy, anxiety, intrinsic motivation, and L1 strategies are connected. Professors with limited experience abroad feel less confident and report higher anxiety levels when teaching EMI courses. Furthermore, instructors appear to have difficulty committing solely to English when teaching EMI to ensure that the whole class understands the course content, so they use both languages as a strategy to teach EMI courses (Yeh, 2012) [23]. English self-efficacy was more prevalent among those professors who had lived and studied abroad, which finding is echoed in past research (Dearden, 2016) [45]. Results show that these professors had high levels of English proficiency and were faced with less anxiety and greater intrinsic motivation when teaching an EMI course.
Regarding Research Question 2 (What influence do instructor characteristics have on intrinsic motivation for teaching EMI courses?), intrinsic motivation to teach EMI courses was significantly predicted by professor self-efficacy, which is itself inversely correlated with anxiety in teaching EMI courses. Based on these results, it can be posited that professors with low self-efficacy in English should be free to teach in their own language (L1), while EMI classes should be prioritized for professors with high English self-efficacy. In consideration of the significant path coefficient that the perceived benefits have on intrinsic motivation to teach EMI, EMI instructors should believe that these courses benefit students’ English language skills. In a similar vein, these instructors may also benefit from behavioral therapy or some other anxiety-reducing strategy, to help relieve their English anxiety when teaching. Taking steps to help improve intrinsic motivation to teach EMI will ultimately increase the teaching motivation and consequent learner enthusiasm.
The use of English for teaching science and engineering majors is important since English is considered the global language of trade, science, and engineering (Rao, 2019) [46]. EMI courses in science and engineering generally focus on acquiring technical and theoretical knowledge about the content of the class and not on communication-based learning goals or cultural awareness. The students learn terms and expressions that are specific to their field of study in their L2 and how certain concepts can be explained in English. Considering the globalization of Korean companies, it is probably more important for these professors to prepare future scientists and engineers for a global career than professors in other disciplines (Kim et al., 2018) [47]. However, students majoring in science and engineering have a heavy workload, and they should not be overburdened by mixing theoretical knowledge acquisition with communication-based learning goals since doing so may not be feasible. Nevertheless, this does not mean that communication-based learning goals are not important for science and engineering students, but rather that they should be implemented separately from their engineering classes in order to prepare them for a global career.
EMI courses are in science and engineering and focus on technical content. The promoted language of the medium of instruction is English, which is considered a global language for industries related to trade, science, and engineering (Rao, 2019) [46]. Science and engineering courses are not concerned with cultural awareness or internationalization; therefore, EMI should be implemented further to globalize students in their science and engineering courses to equip them for a global career, probably more than in other professions (Kim et al., 2018) [47]. It is worth discussing these interesting facts, as revealed by the results of Science and Engineering majors being sent abroad for work, so global awareness and internationalization training is needed. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, science and engineering majors have a heavy technical workload related to their course and they should not be burdened with communication-based learning goals. Thus, more attention needs to be devoted to the instructions prepared for EMI courses, as they currently do not meet communication-based learning goals, and to do so would be unfeasible. Currently, students in EMI courses are learning basic engineering terms to explain engineering principles, processes, and devices in a common language.
Another potential hurdle to the implementation of EMI in science and engineering is if it is conducted to the detriment of the level of education imparted to the students. Even if top-tier universities want to attract more international students, South Korean students have worked their entire lives to achieve entrance into these universities and they should not receive sub-par levels of instruction. For example, one study reported that an instructor felt that his class had only a middle-school level of content instruction (Jon et al., 2020) [9]. This can occur either because instructors must simplify the content, to be able to teach the class in their L2, or because students require “dumbed-down” content to be able to understand the class in their own L2. Thus, it is important to understand what factors lead to lower-quality instruction in major-specific EMI classes in order to maintain a high educational level.
Moving forward, EMI may be best suited for instructors who enjoy teaching via English, while L1 can be an option for instructors who would prefer, instead, to use their mother tongue for instruction. Considering that some of the main reasons EMI is implemented are to promote cultural awareness, the limited perceived benefits to English skills should be concerning.
Another important suggestion would be to help professors to adapt their teaching material to students with varying levels of English abilities, as most Korean students are not fluent in English. Since English is the medium through which the subject is learned, it could affect how well individuals comprehend the material. Therefore, instructors should attempt to modify their course materials to be easier to understand for EFL students (Corrales et al., 2016) [5]. Tejada-Sanchez and Molina-Naar’s (2020) [48] report concluded that EMI would inevitably be implemented as part of universities’ internationalization efforts, but for an EMI strategy to be sustainable, its participants must be aware of its context and be able to articulate it. Some suggestions of how to do so would be to add translations of common terms in the class, to ensure that homework and exam questions have an appropriate level of difficulty in terms of reading comprehension, and to focus on the content of the work produced by the student in order to minimize the impact of English abilities in terms of writing and speaking at their grade.
With the increasing importance of internationalization in Korean higher education, universities are strategically considering and actively adopting EMI. The implications of these findings are discussed by Hong (2022) [6], in whose study the advantages of English teaching courses were clearly highlighted—mainly, that such teaching courses within science and technology might play an essential role in the enrollment rate of international students, thus ultimately benefiting specific English education goals (Hong, 2022) [6]. Since the best colleges attract the most international students, they frequently offer EMI courses (Jon et al., 2020) [9].

6. Conclusions

The paper concludes by arguing that participating professors have high confidence levels in teaching EMI courses, coordinated with low anxiety levels. Likewise, professors demonstrated the need to incorporate varied strategies utilizing L1 in teaching EMI courses. Students’ self-efficacy, anxiety, and the perceived advantages of EMI teaching were important predictors of intrinsic motivation to teach EMI courses.

Limitations and Future Research

A limitation in this study pertains to the research design. Findings from a cross-sectional study are chronologically static since data were collected at a single point in time. A repeated measures study could give insight into how instructor beliefs and motivation change over time. This study made no attempt to analyze the anxiety subcomponents or identify the longitudinal influence that the magnitude or frequency of anxiety has on instructors teaching EMI courses. A more comprehensive investigation into how anxiety influences the motivation to teach EMI courses should be addressed in future research.
The current study contains several limitations that should be considered for future research and further critical investigation. Self-reported journals and interviews with learners could offer additional insights into understanding English medium instruction and its influence on intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, this sample of 54 science and engineering instructors in South Korea may not be representative enough to generalize the data. Recruiting larger samples and observing teachers’ teaching performances in the classroom are encouraged to generalize the findings of this study. Similar studies are recommended to be replicated with diverse participants from different educational contexts, to ratify this finding’s generalizability within the educational context and to increase the interpretation of the EMI policy and its undertaking in non-English-speaking countries.
The study acknowledges the limited number of items within the assessment scales. Using a single item to measure a construct is met with skepticism because single-item scales have fewer points of discrimination, may not capture the construct, and lack a measure of internal consistency. Therefore, multi-item scales are recommended because measurement error averages out when individual scores are summed to obtain a total score. For structural equation modeling, a minimum of three items is recommended when conceptualizing a latent variable (Kenny et al., 1998) [49]. In the current study, three to five items were included in each of the survey scales. The intention behind having this conservative number of items per scale was partly to avoid survey fatigue and to meet the minimum limitation for structural equation modeling. However, the inclusion of only three items is not uncommon in intrinsic motivation studies in education (Khazaie and Mesbah, 2014 [50]; Nakata, 2009) [51]. Future research can include more items to explore how other intrinsic motivation subcomponents (e.g., value, usefulness, perceived competence, and importance) are influenced by instructor characteristics.
Future studies could fruitfully explore the state of the level of English proficiency required of students for specific EMI courses. Policymakers and administrators in Korea should identify most EMI issues within classrooms and determine remedial approaches. An institutional EMI steering policy aligns with appropriate preparation and undertaking of the new policy with consideration for the human and financial aids available (e.g., the availability of instructors who can conduct EMI and adequate language-support services for students lacking proper language skills) (Byun et al., 2011) [10].
Additionally, future research should examine the instructors’ role in implementing activities that encourage English medium instruction and utilize remedial approaches. Such research may yield insights into bridging the gap between instructors’ and learners’ perceptions, to provide the most significant learning benefits. Therefore, university leaders and policymakers need to comprehend what factors of EMI policy, mainly coerciveness and inadequate language ability, are seen in this Korean case study.
To date, recommendations for EMI implementation in the literature have been restricted to pedagogical remedies, such as elucidating qualifications for teaching and equipping sponsoring services (e.g., Byun et al., 2011 [10]; Lee, 2014 [52]). Based on the findings in this study, we conclude that the EMI policy should undertake a concurrent and prospective evaluation to ensure a positive movement for the future blossoming of EMI policy.

Author Contributions

Methodology, D.B.; Data curation, N.A. and H.R.; Visualization, H.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

No funding was provided for this study.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all the subjects in this study.

Data Availability Statement

Data is available upon request.

Acknowledgments

The researchers thank Prince Sultan University for funding this research project under grant [ERL-CHS-2022/2]. Also, this paper was supported by Konkuk University in 2022.

Conflicts of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Brown, H.; Bradford, A. EMI, CLIL, & CBI: Differing approaches and goals. In Transformation in Language Education; Clements, P., Krause, A., Brown, H., Eds.; JALT: Tokyo, Japan, 2017; pp. 328–334. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Annette-Bradford/publication/318966462_EMI_CLIL_CBI_Differing_Approaches_and_Goals/links/5994f70e458515c0ce653b60/EMI-CLIL-CBI-Differing-Approaches-and-Goals.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2022).
  2. Ahn, H. Student language mixing practices in English medium instruction courses at elite universities in South Korea. J. Multiling. Multicult. Dev. 2022, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ha, M.J. EFL Learners’ willingness to communicate in the EMI college classes. Appl. Linguist. 2011, 27, 27–53. [Google Scholar]
  4. Kang, D. An exploratory study of university EFL students’ participation in CBI. Engl. Lang. Teach. 2008, 20, 19–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Corrales, K.A.; Rey, L.A.P.; Escamilla, N.S. Is EMI enough? Perceptions from university professors and students. Lat. Am. J. Content Lang. Integr Learn. 2016, 9, 318–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Hong, J. A study of language-related episodes in online English-medium instruction classes in high schools in South Korea. Engl. Specif. Purp. 2022, 67, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. MacIntyre, P.D.; Dörnyei, Z.; Clément, R.; Noels, K.A. Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Mod. Lang. J. 1998, 82, 545–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Skehan, H.W. Individual Differences in Second Language Learning; Edward Arnold: London, UK, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  9. Jon, J.E.; Cho, Y.H.; Byun, K. Internationalization by English-Medium Instruction? Professors’ decoupling behaviors to EMI policy in Korean higher education. KEDI J. Educ. Policy 2020, 17, 297–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Byun, K.; Chu, H.; Kim, M.; Park, I.; Kim, S.; Jung, J. English-medium teaching in Korean higher education: Policy debates and reality. High. Educ. 2011, 62, 431–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Williams, D.G. A systematic review of English medium instruction (EMI) and implications for the South Korean higher education context. English Language Teaching World Online. Spec. Issue CLIL 2014, 1–23. Available online: https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/blog.nus.edu.sg/dist/7/112/files/2015/04/EMI-in-South-Korea_editforpdf-1gmsyy5.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2022).
  12. Smit, U.; Dafouz, E. (Eds.) AILA Review: Gaining Insights into English-Medium Instruction at European Universities; John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012; Volume 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mortensen, J.; Haberland, H. English—The new Latin of academia? Danish universities as a case. Int. J. Soc. Lang. 2012, 175–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Park, J.S.-Y. The Local Construction of a Global Language: Ideologies of English in South. Korea; Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin, Germany; New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Jambor, P.Z. English Language Necessity: What It Means for Korea and Non-English Speaking Countries. Eric.ed.gov. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED528279.pdf (accessed on 30 October 2022).
  16. Byun, K.; Kim, M. Shifting patterns of the government’s policies for the internationalization of Korean higher education. J. Stud. Int. Educ. 2011, 15, 467–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kim, J. Restructuring universities in Korea. In Human Capital Policy; Edward Elgar Publishing: Northampton, MA, USA, 2021; pp. 55–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Başıbek, N.; Dolmacı, M.; Cengiz, B.C.; Bür, B.; Dilek, Y.; Kara, B. Lecturers’ perceptions of English medium instruction at engineering departments of higher education: A study on partial English medium instruction at some state universities in turkey. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 116, 1819–1825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Shimauchi, S. English-medium instruction in the internationalization of higher education in japan: Rationales and issues. Educ. Stud. Jpn. 2018, 12, 77–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Altbach, P.G.; Knight, J. The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. J. Stud. Int. Educ. 2007, 11, 290–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Briggs, J.G.; Dearden, J.; Macaro, E. English medium instruction: Comparing teacher beliefs in secondary and tertiary education. Stud. Second. Lang. Learn. Teach. 2018, 8, 673–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Hu, G.; Duan, Y. Questioning and responding in the classroom: A cross-disciplinary study of the effects of instructional mediums in academic subjects at a Chinese university. Int. J. Biling. Educ. Biling. 2019, 22, 303–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yeh, C.C. Instructors’ perspectives on English-medium instruction in Taiwanese universities. Curric. Instruc.-Tion. Q. 2012, 16, 209–232. Available online: http://www.aci-taiwan.org.tw/pdf/16-1/16-1_c05_e.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2022).
  24. Kim, J.; Tatar, B. Nonnative English-speaking professors’ experiences of English-medium instruction and their perceived roles of the local language. J. Lang. Identity Educ. 2017, 16, 157–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jensen, C.; Danish, J. University lecturers’ attitudes towards English as the medium of instruction. Ib’Erica 2011, 22, 13–34. [Google Scholar]
  26. Aguilar, M. Engineering lecturers’ views on CLIL and EMI. Int. J. Biling. Educ. Biling. 2017, 20, 722–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Curle, S.; Yuksel, D.; Soruç, A.; Altay, M. Predictors of English Medium Instruction academic success: English proficiency versus first language medium. System 2020, 95, 102378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liu, M.; Wu, B. Teaching anxiety and foreign language anxiety among Chinese college English teachers. SAGE Open 2021, 11, 215824402110165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bekleyen, N. Helping teachers become better English students: Causes, effects, and coping strategies for foreign language listening anxiety. System 2009, 37, 664–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Machida, T. Japanese elementary school teachers and English language anxiety. TESOL J. 2016, 7, 40–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yoon, T. Teaching English though English: Exploring anxiety in non-native pre-service ESL teachers. Theory Pract. Lang. Stud. 2012, 2, 1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Merç, A. Sources of Foreign Language Student Teacher Anxiety: A Qualitative Inquiry. Eric.ed.gov. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED537806.pdf (accessed on 30 October 2022).
  33. Macaro, E.; Curle, S.; Pun, J.; An, J.; Dearden, J. A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Lang. Teach. 2018, 51, 36–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Bailey, D.B. Conceptualization of second language writing strategies and their relation to student characteristics. J. Asia 2019, 16, 135–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kao, C.W.; Reynolds, B.L. A study on the relationship among Taiwanese college students’ EFL writing strategy use, writing ability and writing difficulty. Engl. Teach. Learn. 2017, 41, 31–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lee, J.H. The effects of short-term study abroad on L2 anxiety, international posture, and L2 willingness to communicate. J. Multiling. Multicult. Dev. 2018, 39, 703–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ryan, R.M. Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. J. Pers Soc. Psychol. 1982, 43, 450–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2000, 25, 54–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. McAuley, D.; Duncan, T.; Tammen, V.V. Psychometric properties of the intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Res. Q. 1989, 60, 48–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bailey, D.B.; Rakushin-Lee, A. Confidence is everything: The mediating effects of self-efficacy on task value and social media participation. TESL-EJ 2021, 24, 1–20. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1288719 (accessed on 1 December 2022).
  41. Bong, M.; Skaalvik, E.M. Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really? Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2003, 15, 1–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Horwitz, E.K.; Horwitz, M.B.; Cope, J. Foreign language classroom anxiety. Mod. Lang. J. 1986, 70, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  44. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis; Pearson: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  45. Dearden, J. Higher education teachers’ attitudes towards English medium instruction: A three-country comparison. Stud. Second. Lang. Learn. Teach. 2016, 6, 455–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Rao, P.S. The role of English as a global language. Res. J. Engl. 2019, 4, 65–79. Available online: https://www.rjoe.org.in/Files/vol4issue1/new/OK%20RJOE-Srinu%20sir(65-79).pdf (accessed on 1 December 2022).
  47. Kim, J.; Kim, E.G.; Kweon, S.-O. Challenges in implementing English-medium instruction: Perspectives of Humanities and Social Sciences professors teaching engineering students. Engl. Specif. Purp. 2018, 51, 111–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Tejada-Sanchez, I.; Molina-Naar, M. English medium instruction and the internationalization of higher education in Latin America: A case study from a Colombian university. Lat. Am. J. Content Lang. Integr. Learn. 2021, 13, 339–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kenny, D.A.; Kashy, D.A.; Bolger, N.; Gilbert, D.T.; Fiske, S.T.; Lindzey, G. The handbook of social psychology. Data Anal. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 233–265. [Google Scholar]
  50. Khazaie, Z.M.; Mesbah, Z. The relationship between extrinsic vs. intrinsic motivation and strategic use of language of Iranian intermediate EFL learners. Theory Pract. Lang. Stud. 2014, 4, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Nakata, Y. Intrinsic motivation in the EFL school context: A retrospective study of English learning experiences in Japanese elementary schools. J. Asia TEFL 2009, 6, 263–291. [Google Scholar]
  52. Lee, S.Y. A study of current states of EMI and its improvement: Focusing on FGI analysis of instructors and learners. Jungang J. Engl. Lang. Lit. 2014, 56, 419–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Item-by-item analysis of variables.
Table 1. Item-by-item analysis of variables.
MSDSkew.Kurt.
Intrinsic Motivation to Teach EMI classes (Cron. α = 0.724).
1I enjoy teaching EMI classes.2.911.060.09−0.80
2I am satisfied with the EMI courses I provide.3.360.97−0.68−0.28
3I prefer teaching EMI classes if I have a choice.2.661.090.30−0.50
Self-efficacy using English in EMI classes (Cron. α = 0.936)
4I can use English to fully explain the concepts taught in my EMI classes.3.891.03−1.461.99
5I can fully identify in English the main issues covered in my EMI classes.3.950.97−1.402.14
6I can clearly communicate in English the topics taught in my EMI classes.3.870.96−1.291.82
Korean Use in EMI Classes (Cron. α = 0.846)
7Difficult content should be additionally explained in Korean.3.981.06−1.020.27
8Students should be allowed to use Korean for exams.3.761.11−0.960.09
9If necessary, Korean should be used during class.3.731.25−0.86−0.34
10Korean should be allowed in assignment submissions.3.511.25−0.59−0.80
11The instructor should be allowed to summarize information in Korean at the end of class.3.421.15−0.29−0.97
12The instructor should be allowed to introduce course content in Korean at the beginning of class.2.931.200.35−0.77
Anxiety Using English During EMI Classes (Cron. α = 0.674)
13I am worried that students will not understand my English when teaching EMI classes.3.491.03−0.39−1.14
14I feel anxious when I have to use English during lectures.2.580.990.70−0.26
15Teaching EMI classes stresses me out.2.801.160.33−0.77
Benefits to English Language Skills (Cron. α = 0.697)
16Teaching EMI classes improves students’ English skills.2.861.18−0.70−1.02
17Teaching EMI classes help instructors to improve their English skills.3.440.94−0.860.19
18Teaching EMI courses helps me to improve my English.3.401.01−0.89−0.05
Table
Table 2. Correlation and mean score analysis of the study’s variables.
Table 2. Correlation and mean score analysis of the study’s variables.
12345678
1Age
2English Level0.031
3Living Abroad0.1940.408 **
4Korean Use0.1270.035−0.238
5English Self-efficacy−0.0830.411 **0.409 **−0.066
6Teaching Anxiety−0.089−0.234−0.400 **0.273 *−0.409 **
7Joy Teaching EMI0.1480.301 *0.306 *−0.0160.578 **−0.485 **
8EMI Benefits 0.0110.054−0.09−0.089−0.0210.0990.291 *
M46.677.462.633.563.902.752.983.23
SD8.901.350.620.9110.930.730.840.83
Note: p * = 0.05 alpha, p ** = 0.01 alpha.
Table
Table 3. One-sample t-test of the study variables (sample value = 3.0).
Table 3. One-sample t-test of the study variables (sample value = 3.0).
MDtp
English Self-efficacy0.907.190.00 **
Teaching Anxiety−0.25−2.600.01 **
Joy in Teaching−0.02−0.220.83
Korea Use0.554.520.00 **
Benefits for English Skills0.232.070.04 *
Note: p * = 0.05 alpha, p ** = 0.01 alpha.
Table
Table 4. Regression of EMI instructor characteristics on intrinsic motivation to teach EMI.
Table 4. Regression of EMI instructor characteristics on intrinsic motivation to teach EMI.
BSEBetatpFR2Adj. R2
Constant0.0361.001 0.0360.9716.6480.5470.465
Age0.0220.0140.2341.6250.111
L2 Proficiency−0.0020.074−0.003−0.0240.981
Experience Abroad0.0600.1680.0450.3530.725
Teaching Experience−0.1110.102−0.157−1.0900.282
Self-efficacy0.4280.1220.4363.5040.001 **
Anxiety−0.3700.139−0.329−2.6540.010 **
Korean Use 0.1340.1040.1481.2890.204
Benefits to English0.3400.1090.3313.1220.003 **
Note: p = 0.01 **.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Almusharaf, N.; Bailey, D.; Rodrigue, H. Investigating Engineering Instructor Characteristics Associated with English Medium Instruction and Their Influence on Intrinsic Motivation. Sustainability 2023, 15, 973. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15020973

AMA Style

Almusharaf N, Bailey D, Rodrigue H. Investigating Engineering Instructor Characteristics Associated with English Medium Instruction and Their Influence on Intrinsic Motivation. Sustainability. 2023; 15(2):973. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15020973

Chicago/Turabian Style

Almusharaf, Norah, Daniel Bailey, and Hugo Rodrigue. 2023. "Investigating Engineering Instructor Characteristics Associated with English Medium Instruction and Their Influence on Intrinsic Motivation" Sustainability 15, no. 2: 973. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15020973

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop