The A-B-C of content teaching in an EMI classroom

CLIL Content and Language Integrated Learning, as we know, is an umbrella dual-focused pedagogical approach (e.g., Dalton-Puffer, 2011) that is more commonly associated within contexts of primary and secondary education. Pedagogical strategies and materials are designed to, on the one hand, progressively work towards higher-order thinking and production abilities in areas of content learning in a foreign language, often English, while simultaneously attending to the students’ need to develop the relevant linguistic competencies in the target language. To achieve these, and related goals, materials and teaching strategies centre on the principles of integration (Nikula et al., 2016) and high-quality classroom interaction (Walsh, 2006). But what of the EMI context? Specifically, how is content and language integration achieved (or at least, aimed at) in tertiary education? To allay concerns to some degree, language, in any context, packages knowledge, and knowledge is packaged in language. In other words, language and knowledge co-constitute each other (Airey & Linder, 2009; Lemke, 1990). So, although EMI as such does not hold to explicit language-related goals, studies have shown that teachers do hold themselves and students accountable for the correct use of conventionalised disciplinary language in the field (Clua Serrano 2021; Clua1 & Evnitskaya, forthcoming, Escobar Urmeneta, 2017; Mancho-Barés, G., & AguilarPérez, M., 2020) as well as deal with language aspects, often beyond the purely technical range (e.g., Andjelkov, 2022). However, a significant proportion of faculty rejects certain socio-constructivist-based CLIL methodologies that are often used in compulsory-level education (e.g., Kletzenbauer et al., 2022, this issue), believing these approaches should be reserved for university students with low English language proficiency (Aguilar, 2017; Airey, 2016). This not only speaks of the additional investment required of teachers in the EMI enterprise (Doiz et al. 2011), but also of the reported identities at play in teachers as content, and not language, experts (Macaro, 2018; Mancho-Barés, G., & Aguilar-Pérez, M., 2020). All in all, research continues to explore teacher (and student) practices in, and beliefs about, EMI to find ways to optimise teaching and learning in this context. The interview presented here serves to get a glimpse into pedagogical praxis and identity through the experience of one EMI teacher. Javier Jimenez Jimenez is a tenured Associate Professor in the Department of Basic Science at the Universitat Internacional de Catalunya (UIC Barcelona). He is an experienced lecturer, and through this interview, he reflects on his experience as an EMI teacher of Immunology and Microbiology between the years 2016-2019. He taught this subject in English in the English-track Dentistry programme, and in Spanish in the Spanish-track programme, back-toback. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.95 eISSN: 2604-5613 Print ISSN: 2605-5893