10 Multiple dimensions of Englishmedium education

10 Multiple dimensions of English- medium education Striving to initiate change, sustainability, and quality in higher education in Sweden Magnus Gustafsson and Jennifer Valcke Abstract English-medium education (EME) has traditionally been associated with attracting international students – one-way mobility – in combination with English L1 speaker norms due to the prestige and global hegemony of English. The implications of using EME go beyond mere communication, since they also affect ways of thinking, seeing and practising the disciplines and this has been reflected in public controversies in Sweden. University leadership has to consider the pedagogical, linguistic, and cultural im- plications of internationalization and the impact of Englishization. This chapter offers a partial governance overview of EME in Swedish HEI and exemplifies EME interpretations with two case descriptions, where one focuses more on EME and the other more on the internationalization of the curriculum. Keywords: English-medium education (EME), Sweden, internationaliza- tion strategy, language policy, quality 1 Context and overview of Englishization in Sweden Swedish universities have consistently been at the forefront of the process of Englishization (Hultgren et al., 2014; Hultgren et al., 2015; Wächter & Maiworm, 2014) over the past three decades. Englishization in Sweden can be conceptualized as a drive towards English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI), alongside it being a subject taught in the curriculum (Hultgren, Wilkinson, Robert, and René Gabriëls (eds), The Englishization of Higher Education in Europe. Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press 2021 doi: 10.5117/9789463727358_ch10 216  Magnus Gustafsson and Jennifer Valcke 2018). This chapter specifically addresses how two Swedish universities have engaged with curricular reform as a result of global, national, and institutional internationalization policies to integrate and support teaching and learning through English. EMI presents both an opportunity and a challenge for Swedish universities today – ranging from a means to enhancing the quality of teaching and learning through to a means of reinforcing social inequalities (Karlsson, 2017). Hult (2012) discusses linguistic hierarchy in Sweden, where English as international language is clearly positioned strongly alongside Swedish, the local language. On the one hand, Swedish is the language recommended for use in administration and legislation, and on the other hand, English is seen as outward-looking and mobile (Ferguson, 2007; Hult & Källkvist, 2016; Karlsson, 2017; Norén, 2006; Phillipson, 2015). English has thus acquired a preferential position over other languages and has become the language of internationalization (Hult & Källkvist, 2016; Karlsson, 2017; Liddicoat, 2016; Phillipson, 2015; Siiner, 2016). The strategic choices made by Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) must remain relevant to our interconnected and interdependent world ‘shaped by complex local and global relationships between people and their physical and cultural environments’ (Leask, 2020, p. 1388). These choices are addressed by the Swedish inquiry for internationalization (Bladh et al., 2018) which reviews the international aspects of higher education, research, and other activities in Swedish HEIs, including the conditions set out by the government and other public organizations. While the inquiry does not explicitly mention teaching and learning in languages other than Swedish, it does mention that official decision-making in Swedish can hinder non-Swedish speaking persons from taking official positions within HEIs (Båge et al., 2021). Additionally, the inquiry highlights that language is the single most important obstacle for including non-Swedish speaking students in decision-making at HEIs according to student unions (Bladh et al., 2018, p. 341). The inquiry asks HEIs to develop guidelines for which languages should be used in which context, in order to make the choice of language transparent and predictable for all students and faculty. A final recommendation is for HEIs to initiate, design, and provide language courses and language support for students, faculty and administrative staff. Interestingly, the inquiry recognizes the importance of sustainable development, global dimensions, and intercultural competence as a measure of quality education. In this way, the inquiry aligns with the aim of Interna- tionalization of Higher Education (IHE) ‘to make a meaningful contribution to society’ as defined by De Wit et al. (2015). The inquiry also raises the Multiple dimensions of English-medium education 217 question of student mobility as being a factor of inequality, where mobility only benefits few students and teachers. It highlights that it is ‘necessary for students to acquire international understanding and intercultural competence at home’ (Bladh et al., 2018, p. 18). Internationalization at Home (IaH) is, in fact, a Swedish concept coined by Bengt Nilsson (2003) from Malmö University, which lays out possible solutions for the integration of international, intercultural, and global dimensions into the delivery of higher education. Nilsson saw IaH as an antidote to ‘vaccinate all our students against the dark forces of nationalism and racism’ (Nilsson, 2000, p. 26). Before we go on to explore how global and local agendas influence lan- guage policies in Swedish HEIs, the authors wish to clarify that ‘universities need to be committed to articulating policies that can achieve greater social justice, for instance ensuring that any threat from English is converted into an opportunity that does not impact negatively on the vitality of other languages’ (Phillipson, 2015, p. 39). The shift towards teaching through English is therefore not a homogeneous one, and when looked at in detail, the standardizing function of English turns out to be more complex and multifaceted than initially expected (Dafouz & Smit, 2020). 2 A note on the roles and conceptualizations of English Contending with the need of this chapter to present an overarching con- ceptualization that is both inclusive and equitable, the authors recommend the recently introduced ROAD-MAPPING framework for English Medium Education in Multilingual University Settings (EMEMUS, hereafter EME) by Dafouz and Smit (2020). Drawing on current research and examples from a variety of settings, EME makes a strong case for the dynamic and diverse nature of university contexts both as a methodological tool for researching educational practices and as an analytical guide for examining policies and the continuous professional development of teaching staff. EME thus shifts away from a narrow, monolingual perspective of teaching in English, to an organic view encompassing multilingualism, multiculturalism and interdisciplinarity. Any understanding and strategic design of EME is reflected in the role users assign to English. However, that role, in turn, is affected by concep- tualizations of English. Dafouz and Smit (2020) describe how monolingual or multilingual approaches to English impact the entire EME design and the scaffolding of student learning. A monolingual approach with English as a foreign, second, or even academic language risks limiting the full 218  Magnus Gustafsson and Jennifer Valcke potential of EME as it sidesteps the development of English in the world and misses the point of the shared responsibility for knowledge creation and collaboration as it prioritizes some users over others on monolingual grounds. They suggest that a more inclusive conceptualization of English as a lingua franca (ELF) encourages teachers to challenge preconceived ideas about language standards and norms (Jenkins, 2017; Ur, 2009) in such a way as to promote communicative abilities and open possibilities for different Englishes to co-exist in the classroom (Båge & Valcke, 2021). In so doing, teachers can deliver effective and inclusive EME (Dafouz & Smit, 2020), if they are able to reflect on the influence and impact teaching in English has on a teacher’s identity. In this respect, Jenkins (2017) suggests that a fully competent speaker of English as an international language is a speaker with a wide vocabulary, unambiguous grammar, and an easily understood accent, and whose first language (L1) may or may not be English. For university teachers to develop a teaching persona that is inclusive of the heterogeneous language proficiency present in their classrooms, it seems that some myths and preconceptions about language acquisition and language learning need to be debunked. Given that the Nordic countries were early adopters of EME and may have formed their respective conceptualizations of English at a point in time when multilingualism was not yet sufficiently articulated, ELF is not as widely applied in Sweden. Consequently, Swedish EME seems to assume English as a foreign or second language (Kuteeva, 2014). The fact that the Nordic countries also tend to rank high on English proficiency tests (Dafouz & Smit, 2020) might further suggest the less prominent position for ELF in Swedish higher education in terms of its guiding documents, faculty training, language support for students and staff, or even admissions requirements. In the next section, we look at different levels of governance that shape the development of EME across the Swedish higher education landscape. 3 Panorama of policy and ideology in Sweden To Sweden, a small export-dependent country, IHE and IaH are seen as particularly valuable (Bladh et al., 2018). Learning through other languages, specifically English, is a gateway to the rest of the world which enables international, fee-paying students to come to Sweden and contribute to its economy in various ways, but also a way to bring international perspectives into the Swedish classrooms. In order to balance realistic expectations and high ambitions, we must remember that strategies that plan clearly Multiple dimensions of English-medium education 219 Figure 10.1 Levels of governance affecting Englishization in Sweden 1 https://sdgs.un.org/goals 2 https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal4 3 https://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/higher-education/about-higher-education-policy_en 4 https://www.norden.org/en/treaties-and-agreements/nordic-language-convention 5 https://www.uhr.se/en/start/laws-and-regulations/Laws-and-regulations/ The-Swedish-Higher-Education-Act/ 6 https://www.regeringen.se/contentassets/9e56b0c78cb5447b968a29dd14a68358/ spraklag-pa-engelska 7 https://www.government.se/4a788f/contentassets/6732121a2cb54ee3b21da9c628b6bdc7/ oversattning-diskrimineringslagen_eng.pdf 8 https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/ forvaltningslag-2017900_sfs-2017-900 9 https://www.government.se/48fc30/contentassets/4df6aeabd2bd4f5dbbf69210f786e133/ internationalizationagenda.pdf for gradual progression towards these goals are essential (Jellinek, 2018). Such strategies might rely on indicators that are measurable or observable, of course, but they also need to address issues of the challenges of aligning efforts among disparate disciplinary or departmental cultural assumptions at the respective institutions. In order to begin to understand the current state of Englishization in Swedish higher education, we need to first look at the various levels of governance that affect it. Figure 10.1 shows all the relevant documents that regulate education and language of instruction from the local to the global levels. While there is a complex interplay between these documents, the focus of this chapter is mainly on the local and global levels. These combined documents provide either rules to abide by or recommendations 220  Magnus Gustafsson and Jennifer Valcke and guidelines to follow. As we shall see, Swedish HEIs have freedom to choose the degree to which these documents will be implemented or not. 3.1 Towards inclusive and equitable quality education Let us now look at the global level from Figure 10.1 and the UN Agenda 2030 with its Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2015). How do they influence and shape EME internationally and, by extension, how do they inform the Swedish higher education panorama? As we have seen, the understanding of internationalization has shifted from focusing on language for the sake of facilitating mobility, to integrating international perspectives and global dimensions into the curriculum to allow all students to benefit from internationalization (Hudzik & McCarthy, 2012, p. 2). This shift in emphasis is significant; so, where are we now, where to next, and what are the larger visions for internationalization of education, as well as EME? In 2015, the United Nations made quality education a top global priority, addressed by Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4) which specifically highlights that by 2030 nations need to ‘ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all’. SDG4 Target 7 further includes ‘global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity’ (UNESCO, 2017a, p. 8) as def ining characteristics of quality education and recommends this goal be attained through: (a) national education policies; (b) curricula; (c) teacher education; and (d) student assessment (UNESCO, 2017a, p. 48). These indicators for Target 7 do not explicitly mention language. Rather, the ubiquity of language in education pervades and transcends notions of equitable and inclusive relations and communication – concepts which hark back to global citizen- ship. Global citizenship is mentioned as an indicator for quality education, which requires competencies, skills, knowledge, and values necessary to live in society. The challenge posed by global citizenship must therefore be contextualized locally, since ‘inequality coexists with a diversity of ethnicities, languages, cultures, trajectories, circumstances and worlds’ (UNESCO, 2017b, p. 15). There is a clear overlap between global citizenship and research in EME (Dafouz & Smit, 2020), in that learners are asked to recognize and appreciate the multiple identities inherent to cultures and languages, in order to develop skills for living in an increasingly diverse world. Such a view also overlaps with IHE as a process that inevitably calls for action and is equated with quality education and innovation (De Wit et al., 2015). It is clear that the roles that languages play in academic settings are multi-layered and complex. Multiple dimensions of English-medium education 221 Many Swedish HEIs have therefore tried to support their staff and students by articulating language policies and guidelines. 3.2 Language policies at Swedish higher education institutions There is no national document constituting what a language policy in higher education should cover or address in Sweden, unlike in Norway for example (Jahr et al., 2006). Since there are no overarching guidelines for drafting language policies, it is up to individual institutions to consider their own local context (Liddicoat & Baldauf, 2008). Universities negotiate their own local practices and processes for areas such as education, research, administration, and promotion strategies in alignment with national regula- tions, such as those in the Higher Education Act and the Language Act (see Figure 10.1). In this way, HEI language planning becomes an intermediate layer between the national and the local. Reviewing the language policies of Swedish universities and university colleges, we note, first, that the process of articulating a language policy can be a long one. Table 1 lists Swedish universities in the order in which their current language policies were published. Given the documentation we have studied, the Royal Institute of Technology and the Swedish Agri- cultural University appear to have been the first universities to articulate and publish their language policies, in 2010. The most recent language policy published as such is that of Uppsala in 2018. Dating the language policies in this heavy-handed manner is risky. Many universities may have had language guidelines integrated in other documents pre-dating the language policies we have found (see also Björkman, 2015, where the language policies of nine universities were analysed; Salö and Josephson, 2014, where they briefly discussed language policies at 15 universities; Soler et al., 2018, who reviewed nine Swedish university language policies and found earlier documents). Readers of these policies will note a pronounced variation in these documents. The degree of detail is radically different in many ways. Some of the policies read like brief policies and make specific references to sup- porting document like guidelines and local rules and regulations (Chalmers University of Technology). Other universities have integrated rules and regulations into the actual policy document and some of the policies read as arguments justifying the policies and decisions (Stockholm University). This variation is also the reason why our overview may suffer missing language policy data since some of the relevant information may be published in other documents (Dafouz & Smit, 2020). Our case studies (see sections 4 and 5) provide examples of this limitation in our language policy data mining Table 10.1 Condensed overview of university language policies in Sweden as of 2020 222  University Year* Local to Swedish Parallel First cycle in Second and Offers Integrates inter- Language language Swedish third cycles in language language national Act** use English support education Royal Institute of Technology 2010 X X X X Partial X *** (2007) Swedish Agricultural University 2010 X X X X Partial X X Stockholm University 2011 X X X X Partial X X Umeå University 2012 X X X X Partial X X (2008) Mid Sweden Unversity 2012 X X Chalmers University of Technology 2013 X X X X Full X *** Karlstad University 2013 X X X X Lund University 2014 X X X X Full X X (2008) Linneus University 2014 X X X X Gothenburg University 2015 X X X X Partial X *** (2006) Uppsala University 2018a X X X X X X * Parenthetical dates from Soler et al., 2018. ** Including explicit or implicit mention of Swedish as authority language and the responsibility to safeguard terminology development in Swedish. *** Implicit in language policy and explicit in guidelines and regulations. a Note that the Faculty of Technology and the Sciences adopted its policy in 2006 (Brock-Utne, 2007). Magnus Gustafsson and Jennifer Valcke Multiple dimensions of English-medium education 223 by increasing the resolution for EME and internationalization beyond the policy level for the two universities. There are several common components in the language policies we have reviewed, and it seems not a great deal has changed since the review by Soler et al. (2018, p. 37). What they all have in common is their reference to the Swedish Language Act of 2009. They tend to refer to two aspects of the Act: (i) that Swedish is the language of agencies and authorities; and (ii) that agencies and authorities have a responsibility to promote the development of Swedish as a language also of science with a focus on building disciplinary terminology. Karlstad and Uppsala make specific references to the corresponding paragraphs in the Act whereas other universities settle for a blanket mention of it. In the context of promoting the development of Swedish as a scientific language, three universities (Chalmers, Lund, Gothenburg) move beyond mere terminology and include phrases to the effect of also developing appropriate discipline-specific rhetorical pat- terns in Swedish. Another aspect of the Language Act, which all but three institutions make specific reference to, is the use of plain language (Nord, 2018) in formal communication. A second recurring component in the language policies is how all universities stress the obvious but complex context comprising the local, the regional, the national, and the international. With two exceptions (Mid Sweden and Lund universities), all policies make explicit remarks about being situated in these four spheres of learning and knowledge creation. On the one hand, this context gives rise to comments about internationalization and accommodating international students and staff. On the other hand, the regional might explain why only four universi- ties explicitly refer to the Nordic Council language convention (2007). Technically, the convention affects all Swedish universities, but it seems universities closer to our Nordic neighbours and our oldest universities are more careful to include it in their language policies (Umeå, Karlstad, Lund, and Uppsala). A third common dimension is the emphasis on embracing parallel language use (Kuteeva, 2014). The international context and the European Union (EU) higher education policy are the obvious drivers for that practice, but only Gothenburg makes that kind of reasoning explicit by referring to their international context. The Swedish Agricultural University states that it is in fact bilingual (English and Swedish), while a university like Umeå has an explicit mission to support and promote two of the minority languages in Sweden (Saami and Meänkeli) and, therefore, highlights that context governs the choice of language. 224  Magnus Gustafsson and Jennifer Valcke A fourth recurring observation in the language policies is what is missing. Only Linneus mentions sustainability. The impact of SDG4 on policies, therefore, is minimal. Then again, while sustainability has been in strategies for the past 10 to 15 years, many language policies pre-date the articulation of the SDGs. More surprising, perhaps, is the fact that only two universi- ties refer to the EU higher education policy or to the Bologna agreement (Royal Institute of Technology and Karlstad). However, this is a particularly weak area in the data collection as many universities may have placed their compliance with the EU policy in their strategy documents or other guidelines (Chalmers University of Technology). As we begin to look at the impact of the language policies on education and instruction at our institutions, we note that almost all universities make explicit that their undergraduate degrees are taught and assessed in Swed- ish unless it concerns a language course (an exception here is Karolinska Institutet, where all undergraduate and postgraduate degrees must have at least 7.5 credits taught through English). For the postgraduate and doctoral degrees, the picture is more complex. Five of the institutions mention the partial delivery of their postgraduate and doctoral degrees in English and some also use the policy to make a strategy statement about increasing the amount of EME. Two universities have already implemented, at the level of policy, fully taught English postgraduate and doctoral programmes (Chalm- ers and Lund). The reasons for implementing this shift to EME are likely multiple: mobility, internationalization away and at home, and EU higher education policy, to name but a few. However, the single most recurring reason offered is the need for two publication languages for postgraduate and doctoral degrees. With second and third cycles as EME, Swedish universities risk conflicting with the Language Act as it states that citizens have the right to use Swedish in their interaction with the authorities. For universities, this means that students must be allowed to provide answers in Swedish during assessment, for instance. The universities seem to consider Swedish their first and main language for administration purposes. Stockholm is explicit in stating that while documents are translated, it is always the Swedish version that is legally binding. Karlstad and the Swedish Agricultural University mention audience analysis as guiding the choice of language, which suggests that not all documents are translated. Many of the policies make specif ic comments about implications for learning in their policies. Five of the universities comment on the centrality of language for learning for instance. On the same note, all universities, except the Mid Sweden University, offer language support, Multiple dimensions of English-medium education 225 but not all of the universities have integrated language education into their programmes. Fewer still have designed a progression of language education components for students as they move from first cycle instruc- tion and assessment in Swedish to second and third cycles as partial or full EME. What might be surprising given the language debate in Sweden and the Nordic countries is the fact that only one of the language policies mentions domain and capacity loss (Stockholm). On the one hand, the absence of these signal phrases might reflect the corresponding emphasis in the Language Act to promote Swedish as a full language. On the other hand, it might be a reflection that most of the language policies appear as a result of that debate, rather than as arguments for it. The debate on domain loss, after all, was more intensive around the period leading up to the Swedish Language Act of 2009 (Brock-Utne, 2007). Josephson, former head of the Swedish language council, offers a thorough account of this development in Swedish language policy dynamics (Josephson, 2014). A complementary account, not so much of the debate as such but of the parallel language status in Sweden, is provided by Salö and Josephson in their land report (Salö & Josephson, pp. 265-322). Salö and Josephson point out multiple dimensions of domain loss and parallel language in Swedish higher education. Publication statistics aside, where English dominates, even if there is a domestic scene for Swedish publications, the range of parallel language use variation is pronounced, with English being more prominent is disciplines like physics and computer science and less so in for instance history and law. English is also frequently used at the master’s degree level. Salö and Josephson also highlight the tangential discussion of the effects on learning when domain loss or parallel language use results in EME. 4 The case of Chalmers University of Technology The process of Englishization at Chalmers dates back to the 1990s. As a university of technology with strong ties to major Swedish industrial arenas, international collaboration in education was and is a given. There were some 20 isolated international master’s programmes delivered partly in English in, for example, management of technology as well as in civil engineering in the early 1990s. While these educational activities offered experience to individual Chalmers faculty, they were not part of, nor the result of a dedicated effort as outlined in vision or strategy documents. 226  Magnus Gustafsson and Jennifer Valcke There was no alignment with other educational strategies and projects, nor was there any organized knowledge transfer within the institution. With the Bologna agreement, however, internationalization and EME were naturally highlighted and coordinated in visions and activity plans in the past. 4.1 Adjusting educational programmes to EME The first step in preparing Chalmers for EME was a project to redesign education to adjust to the three-cycle outcomes-oriented European policy as agreed on in the Bologna agreement (Danielsson, 2010; Räisänen & Gustafs- son, 2006). By 2004, this process was completed at the level of planning and preparation, and postgraduate programmes in English were offered to local, national, and international students by 2007 (C2005/355)1. As programmes were redesigned, admission rules for all international students needed revising (C2007/957) including, for example, the required number of credits for mobility and language requirements for English proficiency (C2010/1394). Since the decision to turn to EME postgraduate programmes was com- municated, faculty training courses have been offered by the Division for Language and Communication. The battery of courses was largely designed in 2005 and informed by basic constructive alignment principles and the findings from faculty surveys and focus group interviews (Räisänen & Gustafsson, 2006). A parallel process included reviewing undergraduate programmes to assess to what extent they prepared students for the language swap between the bachelor’s and master’s levels. In the 1990s and the pre- Bologna structure, many of the engineering programmes offered electives in English that were tailored to the programme disciplines (English for electrical engineering or mechanical engineering, for instance). These elective courses were now redesigned and fully integrated into curricula for some of the programmes. However, the process was only at the programme level; no central decisions regarding providing discipline-specific English proficiency in the first three years were communicated. Hence, students arrived at master’s level with quite varied chances of meeting the challenge of their new EME context. 1 The C-codes in this chapter are references to the record numbers in the internal library of management decisions at Chalmers. The documents are public but not published externally. By Swedish law, you can request documents like these by contacting the registrar (registrator@ chalmers.se) and using these codes to refer to the exact document. You should then receive the document within 72 hours. Multiple dimensions of English-medium education 227 This redesign process to prepare for EME coincided with the debate about domain loss in Swedish. Concern for Swedish was shared among programme managers and the management of education at Chalmers. Therefore, some programme managers relied on admission requirements for their national students and focused language education on Swedish disciplinary and academic language. This effort to promote Swedish is reflected, for instance, in the instructions for the BSc degree projects (C2019/1606) that have em- phasized Swedish as the language of presentation and assessment since 2007. There are also differences between programmes based on the type of focus they have for undergraduate degrees. There are two types of engineering education in Sweden; one is a three- year programme with a focus on application and industry employment, and historically, there is also a longer f ive-year engineering education with a greater focus on theoretical depth as well as development work. In the Bologna process, that five-year education programme was divided into bachelor’s and master’s degrees, with only the master’s level delivered in English, often inspired by the graduate school emphasis on research preparation. While both these types of engineering profiles require English in their toolboxes, the need is more urgent for the shorter application-focused programmes. They all have EME components in the final year of the Bachelor, whereas there are ‘graduate schools’ where disciplinary language in English is a learning outcome that only needs to be achieved by the final year. Some of those longer engineering programmes only have elective EME-components at the undergraduate level. With the adjustment to the Bologna process, educational development for language of instruction and assessment was intensive. Today, the situation has stabilized, but the programme design decisions regarding preparing students for EME remain local rather than central (except for admissions requirements at the formal level, (C2010/1394), and guidelines for the MSc thesis (C2016/0973). The language support and language education that is shared across the university is the battery of elective courses offered by the Division for Language and Communication and the support provided to students via the peer tutor writing centre run by the same division. 4.2 Internationalization in education at Chalmers Much like EME, incidental internationalization dates far back in the Chalm- ers history but it has intensified and become more coordinated at various points in time. Chalmers does not run an internationally based campus, but it has had a Taiwan office for a decade and established an exchange for 228  Magnus Gustafsson and Jennifer Valcke students. Another activity that provides internationalization both away and at home and might concern a larger number of students is the application of the Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate (CDIO) approach in engineering education at Chalmers. The national and international collaboration through the CDIO initiative generates multiple opportunities for students and staff to interact and collaborate and exchange experience and expertise. There are also individual projects and interventions on many MSc pro- grammes and many of these are focused on diversity and inclusion (Bergman et al., 2017). Compared to the EME-activities, there are both parallels and differences with the university-wide offer. There is a dedicated faculty training course and there are also integrated activities and workshops delivered by course managers in collaboration with faculty from the Division for Language and Communication. In terms of the number of activities and faculty involved, though, diversity and inclusion activities are still far fewer than the efforts oriented towards disciplinary communication. What is also missing in terms of internationalization is a coordinating office. Today, there is instead an international staff mobility office whose activities and support might indirectly affect internationalization of education. 5 The case of Karolinska Institutet (KI) Like other universities, KI has intentionally prioritized international research collaborations and, to a lesser extent, education, through agreements regard- ing exchange opportunities. However, when it comes to the content and delivery of its education, this intentionality is less pronounced, and there is a noticeable gap in study programmes that systematically and intentionally integrate internationalization into their curricula. 5.1 Adjusting educational programmes to EME From 2014 to 2018, KI’s Board of Higher Education adopted an Action Plan for the internationalization of undergraduate and postgraduate education (Karolinska Institutet, 2014). It had four goals: one dedicated to the integra- tion of Global Health in the curriculum, another to teaching in English and two for increasing mobility and recruitment of international students and staff. The goal addressing teaching in English stated that: All study programmes are to offer at least one compulsory course delivered in English carrying 7.5 credit points or more by 2018. All students are Multiple dimensions of English-medium education 229 thus to take at least one course that is delivered in English during their academic studies at Karolinska Institutet. (Karolinska Institutet, 2014) This goal was supported by the provision of English language courses for academic staff whose language proficiency was below C1 (diagnosed through an in-house language test), but also two professional development courses integrating teaching in English to other areas related to international educa- tion: an online course ‘Two2Tango – Teaching in the international classroom’2 and ‘Teaching in the Glocal University’3 (both equivalent to 2 ECTS). An educational developer was tasked with supporting all study programmes and provide workshops, as well as individual consultations. Unfortunately, KI does not have its own language policy and little information was provided to teaching staff on how to carry out the goal described above. To this day, this has meant that study programmes have adopted EME with varying degrees of integration and quality, and with varying degrees of engagement. Guidelines were therefore necessary and needed to be integrated within a wider approach to IHE. The Board of Higher Education decided to issue recommendations in 2017 (three years after the start of the Action Plan), together with a matrix of internationalized intended learning objectives (ILOs) containing the four dimensions listed below, together with descriptors and rubrics for each dimension. These were: 1 Language skills: reading, listening, writing, presenting, and interacting; 2 Intercultural competence: ‘the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately in intercultural situations based on one’s intercultural knowledge, skills and attitudes’ (Deardorff, 2004, p. 194); 3 Global competence: the ability to engage with global health issues, as well as internationally informed social and/or political issues; 4 International disciplinary learning: the understanding that a given discipline has an international and inter-professional context that is culturally bound. For courses taught through English, the language of instruction is English and must be used for: ‒ Course documentation (syllabus, course plan and additional resources/ documents) ; ‒ Teaching and learning activities (lectures, seminars, workshops, clinical practice, supervision, etc.); 2 https://staff.ki.se/two2tango-tandems-for-teaching-in-english 3 https://staff.ki.se/teaching-in-the-glocal-university 230  Magnus Gustafsson and Jennifer Valcke ‒ Assessment tasks; ‒ Instruction: the syllabus must state that the language of instruction is English, and students should be told in advance of the course that the medium of instruction will be English. The presence of international students is not a necessary condition for international courses, but particular attention should be paid to interna- tionalization at home strategies. This will increase the relevance of the use of English, through the incorporation of international, intercultural, and/ or global perspectives. 5.2 Internationalization of education at KI Although the university had centred its action plan on a broad definition of internationalization, the itemization of the goals illustrated how the understanding of this concept focused primarily on EME, mobility, and recruiting fee-paying international students. However, the coordinating team decided that its implementation demanded a new way of under- standing and working with internationalization holistically, namely the development of language competence (not only English), intercultural competence, international disciplinary learning, and global engagement. Indeed, if KI were to find a systematic and intentional process for inte- grating the four dimensions mentioned previously into the content and delivery of the curriculum, it would be able to shift away from an ad hoc approach to internationalization (Båge & Valcke, 2021). After reviewing and reflecting on the teaching and learning activities resulting from KI’s action plan, Båge and Valcke (2021) found that many were isolated and optional, and very few were systematically developed with intentionality and increasing levels of difficulty throughout the curriculum. If KI was to engage sustainably with internationalization, thereby enhancing and sustaining staff motivation, it had to engage in a planned and systematic evidence-based process. In other words, internationalization of education was more likely to succeed at KI if it was embedded in standard university practice, rather than understood as being developed in parallel to regular university operations. KI faced the challenges of developing a sustainable and integrated approach to internationalization by securing external funding from the Swedish Founda- tion for International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education (STINT) Multiple dimensions of English-medium education 231 to internationalize the curriculum of five of its study programmes (2017-2020).4 The Internationalization of the Curriculum (IoC) is a holistic approach and therefore a dynamic and complex process concerned with ensuring that all students are prepared to work and live ethically and responsibly in a multicul- tural, multilingual, and globalized world (Leask, 2015). IoC in fact instigated a paradigm shift of KI’s conception of quality education by stepping away from haphazard instances of internationalization activities to considering the impact IHE had on its strategic and policy documents, the development of its curricula, the professional development of its teaching staff, as well as its impact on student assessment. This approach also meant expanding the stakeholders involved in IoC from teaching staff and educational leaders, to students, those involved in support services and in quality assurance systems. 6 Concluding remarks on quality EME In Sweden, the convergence of policies and the societal context gives legiti- macy to internationalization and its connections with inclusive and equitable education, multilingualism, and multiculturalism. In such a context, IHE lends itself to EME, but in order for university teachers to develop quality EME that is inclusive of the heterogeneous language practices present in their classrooms, it seems that myths and preconceptions about language acquisition and language learning must first be debunked. Teachers need to change their mindset by rethinking the role English plays in their disciplines today and adopt inclusive language practices, where the use of a lingua franca is understood and different varieties of English are embraced. The work on translanguaging and code-switching demonstrates the often-messy practices of everyday life. From this lived experience, we need to learn how to equip our learners with the language skills they need for a multilingual society and help them develop the necessary sensitivity towards the cultural and linguistic needs of their fellow citizens. These are no small tasks and teachers must face these alongside the challenges of scaffolding deep approaches to disciplinary content learning to promote the desired or expected disciplinary expertise. We believe our two case descriptions exemplify how two very different Swed- ish HEIs implement and operate EME in ways that are indeed recognizable and in keeping with the Language Act and the Higher Education Act, while placing decidedly different emphases on two aspects of EME. Internationalization 4 To f ind out more about the project, consult its webpage: https://ki.se/en/collaboration/ internationalisation-of-the-curriculum-ioc 232  Magnus Gustafsson and Jennifer Valcke and inclusion are pronounced at Karolinska Institutet, while the disciplinary discourse aspect of EME is more apparent at Chalmers University of Technology. What does such variation say about Englishization in Sweden? While the cases might not be mainstream, they do show us that the complex and demanding levels of governance for EME land HEIs in challenging processes and decisions to arrive at balanced EME that meets current conceptualizations and policies. The degree of work that appears to go into EME at these two HEIs, however, also suggests that Swedish HE is onboard and positive to EME, even if a lot of work remains. We call for evidence-based practices to address a broad range of relevant social, theoretical, and practical issues, to facilitate curriculum development and teacher professional development, as well as student assessment. The further conclusions that can be drawn from the Swedish context is that we must integrate awareness-raising of the different possible uses and roles of English in academia into the continuous professional development of teaching staff. If we can equip teaching staff with a range of multicultural sensitivities, then our classrooms can start to be more inclusive and equitable. Acknowledgement The authors wish to than the editors for their support and excellent advice during the publication process. We are also grateful for the perceptive and constructive feedback we received from the two anonymous reviewers. Funding This research was supported in part by a Strategic Research Grant awarded by the Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education (STINT), 2017-2021. References Bergman, R., Norman, A., Carlsson, C., Nåfors, D., & Skoogh, A. (2017). Forming effective culturally diverse work teams in project courses. 13th international CDIO conference proceedings CDIO, 18-22 June 2017, Calgary. Vol. 2017(13), pp. 508-518. 1796-9964 (eISSN) Björkman, B. (2015). Attitudes towards English in university language policy docu- ments in Sweden. In A. Linn, N. Bermel, & G. Ferguson (Eds.), Attitudes towards English in Europe (pp. 115-138). Mouton de Gruyter. Multiple dimensions of English-medium education 233 Båge, K., & Valcke, J. (2021). From English-medium education to sustainable develop- ment goals: The journey of a medical university. In D. Coyle & F. Rubio Alcalá (Eds.), Developing and evaluating quality bilingual practices in higher education (pp. 73-95). Multilingual Matters. Båge, K., Gaunt, A. & Valcke, J. (2021) (in press). Aligning glocal agendas for in- ternational education: Using English-medium education to enhance quality education. European Journal of Language Policy. Bladh, A., Wilenius, M., & Gaunt, A. (2018). En strategisk agenda för internationaliser- ing – Delbetänkande av utredningen om ökad internationalisering av universitet och högskolor [A strategic agenda for internationalisation – Interim report of the investigation of increased internationalization of universities and university colleges]. Swedish Government Official Reports. Retrieved 12 June 2020 from https://www.regeringen.se/490aa7/contentassets/2522e5c3f8424df4aec78d2e 48507e4f/en-strategisk-agenda-for-internationalisering.pdf Brock-Utne, B. (2007). Language of instruction and research in higher education in Europe: Highlights from the current debate in Norway and Sweden. International Review of Education, 53, 367-388. DOI: 10.1007/s11159-007-9051-2 Dafouz, E. & Smit, U. (2020). ROAD-MAPPING English-medium education in the internationalised university. Palgrave. Danielsson, H. (Ed.) (2010). IMPACT – Strategic development of Chalmers master’s programmes. Chalmers University of Technology. https://research.chalmers.se/ en/publication/115021http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/115021. pdf Deardorff, D., K. (2004). The identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of international education at institutions of higher education in the United States. Raleigh: North Carolina State University. De Wit, H., Hunter F., Howard L., & Egron-Polak E. (Eds.) (2015). Internationalization of higher education. European Parliament. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/540370/IPOL_STU(2015)540370_EN.pdf Ferguson, G. (2007). The global spread of English, scientific communication and ESP: Questions of equity, access and domain loss. Iberica, 13, 7-38. Hudzik, J. K., & McCarthy, J. S. (2012). Leading comprehensive internationalization: Strategy and tactics for action. Washington, D.C.: NAFSA. Hult, F. M. (2012). English as a transcultural language in Swedish policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 46 (2), 230-257. Hult, F. M. & Källkvist, M. (2016). Global flows in local language planning: articu- lating parallel language use in Swedish university policies. Current Issues in Language Planning, 17(1), 56-71. Hultgren, A. K. (2018). The Englishization of Nordic universities: What do scientists think? European Journal of Language Policy, 10(1), 77-95. 234  Magnus Gustafsson and Jennifer Valcke Hultgren, A. K., Gregersen, F., & Thøgersen, J. (Eds.) (2014). English in Nordic universi- ties: Ideologies and practices. John Benjamins. Hultgren, A. K., Jensen, C., & Dimova, S. (2015). Introduction: English-medium instruction in European higher education: from the North to the South. In S. Dimova, A. K. Hultgren, & C. Jensen (Eds.), English-medium instruction in European higher education (pp. 1-16). De Gruyter Mouton. Jahr, E. H., Salvanes, A. G. V., Walløe, L., Haugland, K., Sandøy, H., Glasser, R., & Kvåle, G. (2006). Framlegg til ein språkpolitikk for universitet og høgskolar i Noreg. Oslo: Universitets- og høgskolerådet. Jellinek, N. (2018). Sustainability and the teaching context: the role of university educators. In K. Iwinska, M. Jones, & M. Kraszewska (Eds.), Widening interdis- ciplinary sustainability education (pp. 31-43). Collegium Civitas. Jenkins, J. (2017). The future of English as a lingua franca? In J. Jenkins, W. Baker, & M. Dewey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English as a lingua franca (pp. 594- 605). Routledge. Josephson, O. (2014). The Swedish Language Council and English as a Lingua Franca. Sociolinguistica: Internationales Jahrbuch fuer Europaeische Soziolinguistik, 28(1), 105-122. DOI: 10.1515/soci-2014-0010 Karlsson, S. (2017). Språkpolitik vid Svenska universitet och högskolor [Language policy at Swedish universities and university colleges]. Reports from the Institute for Language and Folklore 8. Språkrådet. Karolinska Institutet (2014). Action Plan for the Internationalization of first- and second-cycle education 2014-2018. Stockholm: Board of Higher Education. https:// ki.se/sites/default/files/handlingsplan_internationalisering_0216.pdf Kuteeva, M. (2014). The parallel language use of Swedish and English: the question of ‘nativeness’ in university policies and practices. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35(4), 332-344. DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2013.874432 Leask, B. (2015). Internationalizing the curriculum. Routledge. Leask, B. (2020) Embracing the possibilities of disruption. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(7), 1388-1391. DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2020.1824211 Liddicoat, A. J. (2016). Language planning in universities: Teaching, research and administration. Current Issues in Language Planning, 17(3-4), 231-241. Liddicoat, A. J., & Baldauf, R. B. (2008). Language planning in local contexts. In R. B. Baldauf & A. J. Liddicoat (Eds.), Language planning and policy (pp. 3-17). Multilingual Matters. Nilsson, B. (2000). Internationalising the curriculum. In P. Crowther, M. Joris, M. Otten, B. Nilsson, H. Teekens, & B. Wächter (Eds.), Internationalization at Home: A position paper (pp. 21-28). European Association for International Education (EAIE). Multiple dimensions of English-medium education 235 Nilsson, B. (2003). Internationalization at Home from a Swedish perspective: The case of Malmö. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(1), 27-40. DOI: 10.1177/1028315302250178 Nord, A. (2018). Plain language and professional writing: A research overview. Language Council of Sweden. The Institute for Language and Folklore. https:// www.isof.se/download/18.74fcba02165cbdce76bef271/1539952155460/Plain%20 language%20and%20professional%20writing.pdf Nordic Council (2007). Declaration on a Nordic Language Policy. Nordic Council. Norén, K. (2006). Universiteten väljer språk [Universities choose languages]. Språkvård, 1, 26-29. Phillipson, R. (2015). English as threat or opportunity in European higher education. In S. Dimova, A. K. Hultgren, & C. Jensen (Eds.), English-medium instruction in European higher education (pp. 19-42). De Gruyter Mouton. Räisänen, C., & Gustafsson, M. (2006). More than medium of instruction: The Bologna process and teaching in English. C-SELT report. https://research. chalmers.se/en/publication/53223 Salö, L. & Josephson, O. (2014). Landrapport Sverige: Parallellspråkighet vid svenska universitet och högskolor [Country report Sweden: Parallel language use at Swedish universities and university colleges]. In F. Gregersen, O. Josephson, S. Godenhjelm, M. Londen, J.-O. Östman, A. P. Kristinsson, H. Bernhardsson, U. Røyneland, G. Kristoffersen, M. Kristiansen, J. Thøgersen, & L. Salö. Hvor parallelt: Om parallellspråkighet på Nordens universitet. [How parallel: About parallel languages at the Nordic universities] (pp. 261-322). Nordisk Ministerråd. DOI: 10.6027/TN2014-535 Siiner, M. (2016). University administrators as forced language policy agents. An institutional ethnography of parallel language strategy and practices at the University of Copenhagen. Current Issues in Language Planning, 17(3-4), 441-458. DOI: 10.1080/14664208.2016.1204058 Soler, J., Björkman, B., & Kuteeva, M. (2018). University language policies in Estonia and Sweden: Exploring the interplay between English and national languages in higher education. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39(1), 29-43. DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2017.1307844 United Nations (2015). The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals Knowl- edge Platform. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs UNESCO (2017a). Education for Sustainable Development Goals Learning Objectives. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO (2017b). Conclusions from the Latin America and Caribbean Regional Net- work Meeting on Global Citizenship Education, October 23-24, Santiago: UNESCO. 236  Magnus Gustafsson and Jennifer Valcke Ur, P. (2009). English as a lingua franca and some implications for English teachers. Handout. https://www.tesol-france.org/uploaded_files/files/Coll09-Ur_Ple- nary_Handouts.pdf Wächter, B., & Maiworm, F. (Eds.) (2014). English-taught programmes in European higher education: The state of play in 2014. Lemmens. About the authors Magnus Gustafsson is an Associate Professor at the Division for Language and Communication, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg. His work focuses on academic and disciplinary discourse for faculty and students. In his educational development work, he strives to promote seam- less integration of communication-oriented learning activities to enhance disciplinary expertise. Jennifer Valcke is an Educational Developer for the unit for Teaching and Learning at Karolinska Institutet (KI) in Stockholm, Sweden. Her role includes teaching, training and advising on issues related to curricular integration, sustainable education, international education, intercultural education and English-medium education (EME); and she also provides support for educational leaders to implement educational strategies.