Classroom Discourse in EMI

Understanding Classroom Discourse

Classroom discourse in English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) settings plays a crucial role in supporting both language development and subject comprehension. Research shows that teachers frequently address linguistic challenges while facilitating disciplinary learning, highlighting their dual role in promoting students’ linguistic proficiency alongside the acquisition of academic knowledge (Hong, 2023).

This dual instructional focus is essential, as it enables students to construct meaning, negotiate understanding, and engage with content through effective communicative practices (Uştuk et al., 2025). The expansion of EMI across various educational contexts has also generated discussions about its sustainability and pedagogical effectiveness, particularly in content-heavy subjects such as science, underscoring its increasing global relevance (Pun et al., 2022).

Moreover, EMI classroom discourse highlights the importance of dialogical questioning, which encourages students to engage in deeper disciplinary reasoning and collaborative knowledge construction (Uştuk et al., 2025). These interactional dynamics often reflect broader linguistic policy frameworks, revealing tensions between institutional language expectations and the multilingual realities of learners (Kiramba & Harris, 2018).

Collectively, these studies illustrate that classroom discourse is central to enhancing both content learning and language development in EMI environments, making it a foundational element of effective EMI pedagogy.

The Role of Teacher Talk

Teacher talk is central to the interactional dynamics of English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) classrooms, shaping not only student engagement but also the broader classroom culture and linguistic environment. Research indicates that teacher-led discourse often dominates classroom interactions in EMI settings, with instructors monopolizing speaking time and thereby limiting opportunities for meaningful student participation (An et al., 2021).

This imbalance can hinder students’ ability to engage actively in the learning process, a crucial component of effective knowledge construction (Manan & Hajar, 2024). Effective teacher talk requires sensitivity to students’ linguistic needs, enabling educators to adapt their language use, questioning strategies, and interactional styles to foster a supportive learning atmosphere (Manan & Hajar, 2024).

Even when language barriers are reduced, the tendency for lecturers to dominate classroom discourse often persists, highlighting an ongoing need for EMI instructors to further develop their pedagogical strategies to promote student interaction and dialogic participation (Sun et al., 2023).

Ultimately, the quality of teacher talk plays a pivotal role in EMI learning environments. It not only conveys disciplinary content but also supports the co-construction of knowledge through social interaction, demonstrating the critical relationship between language use and student understanding (Chin, 2007).

Features of effective teacher talk

• Clear organization with signposting phrases (e.g., “Let’s now move to the next concept…”).
• Use of simplified syntax and controlled vocabulary without oversimplifying key ideas.
• Repetition and paraphrasing for reinforcement.
• Strategic pauses to allow cognitive processing.
• Questions that encourage reasoning rather than memorization.

Student Interaction and Participation

Student participation reflects how discourse supports engagement. In many Asian EMI contexts, students may hesitate to speak due to linguistic insecurity or cultural norms valuing silence and deference. Teachers thus play a mediating role, creating safe spaces for interaction and modeling inclusive communication. Group work, pair discussions, and task-based exchanges promote both cognitive engagement and language practice.

Discourse Strategies in EMI

Teachers can employ various discourse strategies to balance content delivery and language support:

• Code-switching and translanguaging: Judicious use of the first language helps clarify complex ideas and build rapport.
• Reformulation: Restating students’ responses in accurate academic English to model target forms.
• Wait time: Allowing 3–5 seconds after asking questions increases response depth.
• Uptake questions: Following up on student comments to extend reasoning (“Why do you think so?”).
• Non-verbal scaffolds: Gestures, visuals, and facial expressions that reinforce meaning.

“Interaction is where content becomes language and language becomes content.” — Macaro (2018)

Managing Linguistic and Cognitive Load

EMI discourse challenges learners’ processing capacities. Students simultaneously decode new terminology, follow academic arguments, and construct knowledge in a second language. Effective teachers manage this by segmenting input, pre-teaching key terms, and using visual aids. Chunking discourse into manageable units reduces overload and enhances retention.

Asian EMI Perspectives

In Asia, EMI classroom discourse is shaped by local linguistic ecologies and cultural expectations. For instance, Japanese and Korean classrooms often reflect hierarchical participation patterns, while Southeast Asian contexts—such as Vietnam and Malaysia—display hybrid discourse forms where English, local languages, and visual cues interact fluidly. Understanding these contextual nuances allows educators to design discourse practices that are both inclusive and effective.

Developing Reflective EMI Practice

Reflecting on classroom discourse helps EMI lecturers identify patterns that facilitate or hinder student learning. Recording and analyzing lessons—using tools like conversation analysis—can reveal tendencies such as over-correction, teacher echo, or insufficient wait time. Through awareness and peer observation, teachers can adjust their language, tone, and questioning techniques to foster dialogic learning.

“Reflective EMI practitioners listen not only to what is said, but to how learning unfolds through language.”