Prioritizing English-Medium Instruction Teachers’ Needs for Faculty Development and Institutional Support: A Best–Worst Scaling Approach

Abstract

This study explored the prioritization of English-medium instruction (EMI) teachers’ needs for faculty development and institutional support by applying a best–worst scaling approach to an EMI program in Japan. This prioritization is important as EMI programs need management under various constraints (e.g., time, budget, and teachers). This study also investigated how teachers’ needs for institutional support differ by English language competence and EMI teaching experience and their relationship with EMI programs (e.g., full-time or adjunct). Questionnaire surveys administered to 38 EMI teachers revealed that, overall, faculty development (FD) program menus training teaching styles, speaking skills, communication skills, and respecting the diversity of students should be prioritized such that it varies depending on the teachers’ English language competence levels but not their teaching experience. Irrespective of their relationship with EMI programs, the recognition and appreciation of their burdens, efforts, and contributions is most needed. There are noticeable differences based on their position over the necessity of pedagogical guidelines, teaching load, and economic incentive.

1. Introduction

Because of the ongoing trend of internationalization and the adoption of English as a lingua franca in higher education (HE) around the world [1,2,3], the expansion of English-medium instruction (EMI) is inexorable and considered one of the most significant phenomena in HE [4]. EMI can be defined as “The use of the English language to teach academic subjects (other than English language itself) in countries or jurisdictions where the first language of the majority of the population is not English” [4] (p. 37). Behind this phenomenon is the belief that EMI can facilitate the internationalization by improving English language competence and content learning [5,6].

One of the most critical challenges for successful EMI is developing a support system for EMI teachers to provide quality education [7]. What makes EMI unique and challenging is that EMI programs are offered by universities in non-Anglophone countries where the primary language is not English, which results in EMI teachers with limited English language competence teaching English [8,9,10]. Although English language competence is not the sole challenge facing successful EMI implementation [11], it is a definitive feature; language competence is more inclusive than language proficiency that focuses on the structural aspects of language, by covering knowledge, skills, and delivery [12].

This challenge is further compounded by the fact that the establishment of EMI programs is top-down and driven by policy rather than being bottom-up and inclusive of enthusiastic stakeholders (i.e., teachers and students) [4,13]. A study by Aizawa and Rose [8] reveals the gap between what meso-level (institutional) policy documentation envisages and the challenges that micro-level (classroom) practice faces. Another survey by Vossensteyn [14] shows that low interest of teachers and students in EMI is one of the main hurdles. Removing resistance and encouraging teacher engagement is a crucial step toward establishing a more successful EMI [15]. Therefore, we cannot solely rely on enthusiastic teachers and students for better EMI programs; this must be bolstered by an effective support system for EMI teachers.

1.1. Literature Review

There are three key aspects worth considering in designing an effective support system for EMI teachers: faculty development (FD), institutional support, and different needs by teacher profile (e.g., English language competence, EMI teaching experience, and relation to an EMI program). First, various studies have indicated that FD for EMI teachers is one of the most urgent needs for effective EMI teaching [16,17]. This not only enhances EMI teachers’ actual levels of competency but also their self-efficacy beliefs that are based on their perceived competencies, leading to further investment in teaching in EMI [18]. Although EMI programs are provided around the world [17,19,20,21,22], the number of EMI teachers who have received training is limited [22]. An international survey revealed that 61.4% of the respondents (EMI teachers) had not taken part in any pre- or in-service training in EMI [16] (p. 149). However, because the online questionnaire was distributed via the authors’ network of connections (i.e., authors involved in EMI research), as the authors cautioned, the number could be underestimated. Another study by Yuan [23] reports that most EMI teachers have not received any EMI training. The university where the authors of the current study worked has not provided any EMI training to EMI teachers. While there has been an induction training system including FD for teaching in Japanese, there is no systemic effort for EMI teachers. As EMI programs at the university are much smaller than Japanese-medium instruction programs and EMI teachers are expected to readily able to teach, little attention has been paid to EMI training. Furthermore, there has been no consensus regarding the competencies needed for EMI teachers [16]. Although the EMI literature has been burgeoning since 2005 concurrent with the growth of EMI [4], studies on EMI training remain scant [7,20,23,24]. Yuan [23] proposes a framework for designing and implementing an effective EMI training program. The framework focuses on three types of barriers to successful EMI: emotional, pedagogical, and social. First, EMI teachers feel unease and anxiety toward teaching in English. Second, EMI teachers have difficulty in teaching in English due to their limited competence in EMI teaching. Third, EMI teachers receive limited external guidance or institutional support. A majority of the studies in EMI literature have focused on the elements of EMI, the beliefs and forces driving EMI adoption, the relationship between EMI and other languages, and multilingualism [4,24]. FD for EMI teachers has not been focused [7]. Therefore, studies on FD for EMI teachers remain lacking and are needed.

Second, EMI training is not the only approach toward improving EMI teaching; institutional support is also necessary. Whereas studies on EMI training are emerging, there is an absolute paucity of comprehensive studies on institutional support other than EMI training. However, there exist some studies, though not comprehensive, on institutional support. For example, various studies have indicated that EMI programs have not been fully integrated into institutions (e.g., [25,26]). Arguably, it is a challenge for new programs, particularly for EMI programs, to establish themselves institutionally [27]. The complaints and concerns raised regarding EMI have not only centered on the incompetence of EMI teachers, but also lack institutional support. For example, some universities do not show recognition or appreciation of their teaching faculty (e.g., [20,23,28]), specifically in instances where professors who are not proficient in English are required to invest much more time in preparing for EMI teaching than those who are L1 users of English are [15,29]. This is a clear depiction of the lack of institutional support or systems that recognize and appreciate EMI teachers’ efforts (e.g., performance appraisals, salary scale adjustments, and promotions), thus causing a mismatch between the teachers’ responsibilities as EMI instructors and what is valued for their careers [7,23,28]. A study applying the second language (L2) motivational-self system (L2MSS) [30] to EMI reveals that teaching in English requires substantial teacher commitments (effort, no free time, and exhaustion) without any economic, social, or even institutional return [5]. Another point is that there are no pedagogical guidelines about what is expected in EMI classes [13,20]. Lasagabaster argues that there is a scarcity of pedagogical guidelines as to how to effectively implement EMI [13]. Chen and Peng studying EMI in China point out EMI teachers’ lack of knowledge about EMI including the role of language in content learning [20]. In sum, being a top-down, policy-driven measure, EMI tends to be individualized and isolated with limited institutional support [23]. Although these concerns have been raised in the EMI literature, the lack of a systemic assessment of the importance of each concern persists.

Third, revealing how teachers’ needs for institutional support differ according to their positions (e.g., tenured or non-tenured) is critical, but this has not been highlighted. Other than common attributes such as sex and age [25,31], studies on EMI teachers have paid attention to English language competence [19,25,31,32,33]; disciplinary genres [17,18,25,31,33]; and experience in EMI teaching [18,25] but not teachers’ positions. However, considering the challenges experienced in recruiting and retaining EMI teachers [15], studying adjunct teachers becomes an essential part of implementing successful EMI programs. For example, around 40% of EMI teachers in the current case study are adjunct professors. Furthermore, because studies raise concerns about the mismatch between the EMI teachers’ workload and career-related institutional recognition of their efforts (e.g., salary scale and promotion) [23,28], teachers’ needs may differ according to their positions. For instance, the issuance of an EMI training certification could have different meanings to tenured and non-tenured teachers. Macaro et al. [16] investigated the importance of certification, but they only focused on disciplinary genres and years of EMI teaching experience, not on the teachers’ positions.

1.2. The Aim of the Study

The aim of this study is to contribute to the EMI literature that is lacking in three key aspects of implementing successful EMI programs while paying special attention to the fact that universities and teachers face resource constraints (e.g., time and budget). In general, agents (e.g., universities and teachers) are expected to achieve their objectives effectively despite the constraints they experience. Alternatively, although facing constraints, universities could prioritize tasks and allocate limited resources to achieve their objectives. Furthermore, teachers are in a context where they need to allocate their limited resources (e.g., time and effort) to their personal goals such as EMI teaching. For example, concise and intensive training is preferred [16]; however, providing the full range of EMI training may be neither feasible for institutions nor welcomed by teachers. Therefore, in such scenarios, both institutions and teachers need to sacrifice their limited resources.

To contribute to the issues, with the constraints in mind, this study explores the following four research questions:

• What EMI FD program menus should be prioritized?
• How does the prioritization of an EMI FD program differ by English language competence and EMI teaching experience?
• What types of institutional support should be prioritized?
• How does the prioritization of types of institutional support differ by position?

This study explores these questions through the case study of an EMI program implemented at a university in Japan. While the primary target of this research study is EMI teachers whose opinions were elicited through a questionnaire and interviews, a questionnaire and interview with a former staff member in the program is added to triangulate the sources so that this study can obtain more credible results [34]. Former staff members can provide clear views about their support for EMI teachers and students that are based on their experiences. To prioritize EMI program menus and institutional support, this study adopts the best–worst scaling approach (BWS) [35]. While the commonly used Likert scales in the EMI literature allow respondents to make the same choice (e.g., strongly agree) over items, BWS asks respondents to rank items according to their relative importance. Therefore, BWS is more suitable for this study.

The rest of the paper is structured as follows. The second section explains the materials and methods used to answer the research questions. The third section reports the results with their implications for an effective support system for EMI teachers, and the last section concludes.

2. Materials and Methods

Questionnaires were administered to EMI teachers and a former staff member supporting the EMI program. To facilitate data analysis, follow-up interviews were also conducted via email. Informed consent was obtained from all the participants whose responses were used in this study. The datasets for this study can be found in the Mendeley Data (doi: 10.17632/3ttwdy8vxs.1).

2.1. The Case

The increase in the number of universities offering EMI programs in Japan can be attributed to the policy measures implemented by the Japanese government [11,36]. For example, in 2014, the Top Global University Project, led by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), selected universities and gave them prioritized support to enable them to lead the internationalization of Japan’s education [37]. The case examined by this study was one of the programs selected by the Top Global University Project.

The case is an EMI degree program (hereinafter “Program A”) offered by a Japanese university that is located in the west of Japan. There are four characteristics. First, the program is categorized into an English-taught program (ETP)—that is, a degree program taught in English. However, it is important to note that EMI, in general, can take any period of time, ranging from a few months to 4 years [27]. Program A is a 4-year EMI program majoring in policy science that was launched in September 2013. Therefore, it is a fall enrollment program. Second, because policy science is an interdisciplinary field [38], students study various disciplines including politics, law, economics, sociology, and urban planning. Third, the program can be categorized as a “Dejima” model [39] as most students are inbound in the program and only a small number of students enroll for the program (approximately 20 to 25 enrollments). Fourth, the minimum requirement of English for students is equivalent to B2 in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR).

While there is a minimum requirement of English for students, the teachers’ English proficiencies vary because there is no minimum requirement of English for EMI teachers. Some may have earned a degree in English and have experience teaching abroad, and others may have earned a degree in Japanese and have no previous teaching experience in English.

2.2. Participants

The EMI teachers involved in Program A were the target population of the questionnaire for EMI teachers’ needs. Because the focus of this study was on EMI teachers whose first language is Japanese, language teachers were excluded (both Japanese and English teachers) as well as those whose first language (L1) was not Japanese. The EMI teachers were contacted through their email addresses. However, some of them were not teaching at the time of the survey. Nevertheless, they were still contacted irrespective of their positions (i.e., whether full-time or adjunct). Although the numbers vary every year, adjunct professors make up about 40% of the EMI teachers in Program A. Consequently, a total of 43 EMI teachers were identified and requested to answer the questionnaire. Out of the 43, 38 teachers (88.37%) answered the questionnaire. Although the questionnaire was anonymous, the teachers were requested to provide their names and contact addresses if they were interested in participating in a follow-up interview. Follow-up interviews via email were conducted with eight EMI teachers. Some interviews were presented as verbatim quotations to complement the quantitative analysis [40].

A former staff member, who served in Program A for 4.5 years, was also requested to participate in the survey. As she had supported both EMI teachers and students outside class, she was conversant with the EMI management and in a position to provide different perspectives to the research questions posed, particularly those on institutional support.

2.3. Questionnaire Design and Data Analysis

The questionnaire was designed by following a constructionist grounded theory [16,41]. First, we conducted a literature review to determine the improvement needs in EMI teaching. Second, we carried out semi-structured interviews with two EMI teachers in Program A to aid the questionnaire design. The draft questionnaire was pre-tested by a Japanese teacher teaching Japanese in Program A and amended accordingly. The questionnaire was delivered and answered online.

Because constructionist grounded theory recommends the improvisation of methodological and analytical strategies throughout the research process [41], the methods and analytical strategies were discussed, and instead of adopting the Likert-type scales often used in the field, we decided to adopt the best–worst scaling (BWS) method [35] to prioritize FD menus (RQ1) and institutional support (RQ3). While Likert-type scales allow respondents to choose the same options (e.g., strongly agree over Choices 1 and 2), BWS asks respondents to answer preferences over options (e.g., relative preference of Choice 1 over Choice 2). Therefore, BWS is more suitable to rank choices.

For this reason, BWS requires respondents to make the best choice and the worst choice from a subset of choices extracted from the whole choice. By repeatedly answering subset questions, their preferences over the whole choices can be computed (see

Table 1. An example of a BWS question.

	Best Choice	Worst Choice
Choice 1	□	☑
Choice 3	☑	□
Choice 4	□	□

The choices are extracted from the whole choices (e.g., Choices 1, 3, and 4 from 10 choices). The respondents were asked to answer a set of questions with different choices.

for an example). Contrary to Likert scales, which ask respondents to state their preferences over an item once, BWS asks respondents to reveal their preferences over an item multiple times. In this study, because the respondents were asked to choose the best and the worst choices seven times for the FD program menus and institutional support each, the results were based on 266 responses for each ranking (38 respondents × 7 combinations).

The method is based on random utility theory (RUT). RUT assumes that although people make errors, the iterative process elucidates their preferences [35]. This method is useful when respondents are required to rank many items. The subsets were generated using Rx64 3.6.2 (https://www.r-project.org/, accessed on 23 July 2021) to conform to the balanced incomplete block design (BIBD) [42].

This study adopted an aggregated version of the standardized best–worst scores to elucidate preferences over choices, computing them as follows [42]:

$$Standardized B{W}_i=\frac{{{\displaystyle \sum }}_n{B}_{in}-{{\displaystyle \sum }}_n{W}_{in}}{Nr}$$

(1)

where, $B_{in}$ and $W_{in}$ are the number of occurrences that choice $i$ is selected as the best and the worst of all the questions by respondent $n$; $N$ is the number of respondents; and $r$ is the number of occurrences that choice $i$ appears in all the questions. Hence, the larger the value of $Standardized B{W}_i$ is, the higher choice $i$ is ranked.

2.3.1. Prioritizing FD Program Menus

Using BWS, we asked the respondents to rank the FD program menus by their necessity for improving their EMI education. Although there have been efforts to offer EMI training around the world [16,17,19,20,22], there seems to be no consensus regarding the competencies required of EMI teachers [16]. On the one hand, it is obvious that using a foreign language makes teaching more arduous and demanding [5], and on the other hand, it seems that English language competence is not the only challenge that EMI faces [11]. For instance, a study has revealed that being a teacher whose primary language is English does not necessarily suggest that she or he is the preferred teacher [32].

According to previous studies and EMI trainings, there are three competencies required of EMI teachers: language skills, pedagogical skills, and intercultural skills [6,11,17,33]. This study selected seven EMI training menus covering these three categories (

Table 2. FD program menus.

Item Category	Item
Language	(1) Listening skills
Language	(2) Speaking skills
Language	(3) Choice of vocabulary (appropriateness)
Cultural	(4) Respect different communication styles, classroom cultures, and learning styles
Pedagogical	(5) Presentation skills
Pedagogical	(6) Teaching styles (i.e., how they teach and manage class time)
Pedagogical	(7) Communication skills

). Six questions, including three items for each question, were generated to conform to BIBD (see Appendix A). Using the sets, the respondents were asked to reveal their preferences over each menu three times.

2.3.2. Prioritizing Types of Institutional Support

Using BWS, we asked the respondents to rank types of institutional support by capability of increasing their motivation and improving their EMI education. To our knowledge, although institutional support has often been mentioned in the EMI literature, there has been no comprehensive study focusing on this issue.

We developed items based on the literature and informed by interviews conducted with EMI teachers (

Table 3. Institutional support items.

Item Category	Item
Recognition	Recognition and appreciation by institutions and colleagues for the burdens their efforts they undertake and their contributions to EMI programs
Information	Pedagogical guidelines (teaching objectives, English education, etc.)
Incentive	Adjustment of credits for burdens, efforts, and contributions
Incentive	A system of pay scales, allowances, and promotions based on burdens, efforts, and contributions
Environment	Recruitment of students with better English language competence and the improvement of students’ English language competence
Environment	Information technology support (e.g., installation of equipment and software and technical support for using IT, including online tools)
Incentive	Issuance of EMI training certificates

). Four types of institutional support were identified: recognition, information, incentive, and teaching environment. First, the extant literature on this topic reveals that the burdens of EMI teachers, their efforts, and their contributions to EMI programs are not appreciated or even recognized [20,23,28]. Second, clear pedagogical guidelines can help EMI teachers understand what institutions expect from their teaching [7,28], how their teaching is expected to contribute to developing students’ English language competence, which is one of the primary reasons for enrolling in EMI programs. Third, some studies have asserted that EMI teachers do not regard their participation in EMI programs as offering any tangible economic benefits [5]. Therefore, they can be effectively motivated by direct monetary appreciation in the form of a system of pay scales, allowances, and promotions that commensurate with EMI teachers’ burdens, efforts, and contributions [28]. Given the heavy workload involved in providing education in English, other than economic incentives, the adjustment of credits can also encourage them to participate in EMI programs [11]. Several studies have reported the views of EMI teachers that teaching English is not their job [6]; one study opined that awarding EMI training certificates can serve as an effective incentive for teachers [16,19]. Fourth, offering EMI teachers a better work environment is also another critical aspect of successful EMI. Arguably, students proficient in English can reduce EMI teachers’ burden [15,43]. Notably, technology can also alleviate EMI teachers’ burdens by diminishing the challenges they encounter in running EMI programs [24]. A caveat, however, is that our inventory could overlook some critical items because of the absence of a comprehensive list of institutional support items that may be referenced from previous studies. Future studies are awaited.

The staff member in Program A was also asked to answer the same items. The following question was posed to her: “Based on your experience of supporting EMI teachers and students, what support do you think is necessary in motivating EMI teachers to maintain or improve their quality of teaching?” The questionnaire administered to the staff member included only this prioritization other than basic questions that included age and experience in serving in Program A.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 4. Profiles of the respondents.

▭	▭	Frequency	Percent
Age	20 s	0	0%
	30 s	9	24%
	40 s	8	21%
	50 s	12	32%
	60 s	8	21%
	n.a.	1	3%
Gender	Male	22	58%
	Female	12	32%
	n.a.	4	11%
Position	Fulltime instructor at the university	22	58%
	Adjunct instructor with full-time position at another university	9	24%
	Adjunct instructor without a full-time position at other universities	7	18%
English language competence	C2	4	11%
	C1	11	29%
	B2	17	45%
	B1	5	13%
	A2	1	3%
▭	A1	0	0%

N (sample size) = 38.

shows the profiles of the respondents. Because adjunct teachers make up 42% of the respondents, it is crucial for a successful EMI program to consider their suggestions and needs. For some programs, the minimum English level required to teach in English has been set to B2, C1, or C2 [19]. However, Program A had not stipulated any required English competence level. Table 4 presents the self-assessment of the teachers’ English language competence. The results show that 16% of the teachers indicated that they either belonged to B1 or A2 levels. Because the minimum requirement for students in Program A is B2, it means that some EMI teachers are less proficient than their students are. The teachers’ teaching experience also varies from 1 to 16 semesters in Program A (1 to 39 including other EMI programs), with a mean of 4.9 (6) and a median of 6 (3) semesters.

Table 5. Experience and Willingness to Participate in EMI Training.

▭	▭	Frequency	Percent
Participated EMI training in the past (SA)	Yes	7	18%
	No	31	82%
	Other	0	0%
Time willing to spend for EMI training (SA)	0 min	5	13%
	90 min	10	26%
	Half a day (4 h)	6	16%
	1 day (7 h)	8	21%
	3 day (7 h/day)	3	8%
	1 week (7 h/day)	2	5%
	More than 2 weeks (7 h/day)	1	3%
	Other	3	8%
Reasons for unwillingness to participate in EMI training (MA, n = 5)	Busy	3	60%
	Do not feel the necessity to improve the education using English	2	40%
	Do not think EMI training can improve my EMI teaching skills	3	60%
▭	Other	2	40%

N (sample size) = 38.

shows the experience of teachers and their willingness to participate in EMI training. This table clarifies that 82% of the teachers had not participated in EMI training, which is higher than the percentage recorded in a previous study (61.4%) [16]. However, as the authors of that study cautioned [16], the number might not represent the actual situation because of their sampling methodology. Notably, 84% of the participants indicated their unwillingness to participate in EMI training programs for more than one day (7 h), clearly indicating the limited resources they were willing to allocate to the FD program. A survey conducted in 70 European universities reported that 75% of the training programs take more than 15 h [19]. This outcome corroborates the need to prioritize FD program menus that should be administered to EMI teachers.

3.2. EMI FD Program Menus That Need to Be Prioritized (RQ1 and 2)

Figure 1 shows the overall prioritizations of EMI FD menus by English language competence and EMI teaching experience. Overall, “(6) Teaching styles” (0.28), “(2) Speaking skills” (0.25), “(7) Communication skills” (0.24), and “(4) Respect differences” (0.18) were relatively important. This result suggests that EMI teachers also recognize that FD relates to pedagogical and cultural aspects and not just English. This outcome is aligned with the findings of previous studies (i.e., [11,17,33]).

The need for learning teaching styles can further be explained by EMI teachers’ backgrounds and the composition of students in Program A. In a follow-up interview via email, an EMI teacher pointed out the gap between how Japanese teachers are educated and trained and what is expected of them in the EMI program. The utterance cited below demonstrates the necessity of training for interactive pedagogy. Moreover, the teachers felt that they should change their teaching styles when the medium of instruction becomes English.

Excerpt 1: I think you often feel the gap between Japanese and overseas styles. In a nutshell, when teaching in English, you have to be interactive. Japanese undergraduate classes are almost one-way, except for seminars, but doing this in EMI teaching may not work (B2; taught EMI for 10 years (20 semesters)).

This statement is in line with a study conducted by Shimauchi [39] in Japan, which administered a survey to Japanese universities and interviewed students attending some EMI programs. Shimauchi’s study suggests that students expected a student-centered classroom culture, such as discussions with peers and the teacher, a practice that is uncommon in classrooms conducted in Japanese.

Instructing students with diverse backgrounds is another challenge. For example, Ruegg [44] stated that it is impossible to make EMI courses accessible to everyone when the class includes students from different secondary education systems. Thus, EMI teachers must decide the target of their course, a severe challenge that they need not face when teaching in Japanese.

The iteration that follows articulates the ways in which the teachers struggle with teaching in the context of such diversity and acknowledge their need to learn different teaching styles and how to respect differences. Another teacher pointed out the challenge of diversity.

Excerpt 2: You shouldn’t look at it as a stereotype, but for example, I think that students from countries where it is natural to talk to faculty members and those who are not used to that are different. I would like to know how the teaching methods and teacher/student relationships are different. My impression is that there is a difference between the questions (in both numbers and positivity) that students in a country that speaks more frankly are likely to pose to their teachers and those that students in a patriarchal are likely to ask. (B2; taught EMI for 7.5 years).

Given constraints such as the budget available for FD programs and the time EMI teachers can sacrifice, it is worth investigating how their needs differ by profile (i.e., English language competence and EMI teaching experience). The overall relative importance of each menu—whether a menu is relatively important (blue) or not important (red)—does not differ by English language competence, except for presentation skills. However, EMI teachers who are proficient in English tend to highly value learning how to “(4) Respect different communication styles and classroom cultures” (0.40) when compared with teachers who are less proficient in English. On the other hand, EMI teachers who are less proficient in English tend to highly value learning the language aspects of EMI “(2) Speaking skills” (0.35) and “(7) Communication skills” (0.32)) when compared with teachers proficient in English.

There are no significant differences in teacher prioritization by EMI teaching experience, except for “(2) Speaking skills.” Experienced EMI teachers tend to prioritize “(2) Speaking skills” by 0.26 points than less experienced EMI teachers do. This can possibly be explained by the fact that experienced EMI teachers would probably want to learn more effective teaching skills. For example, as the next utterance demonstrates, an EMI teacher with less experience showed an interest in learning fixed phrases for instruction especially from a teacher whose first language is English.

Excerpt 3: I would like to take a model lecture by a native English speaker whose lecture pays attention to the structure of it from the introduction, the body, and the end of the lecture. I suppose there are fixed phrases (B2; taught EMI for 2 years).

According to Horie [45], this desire exists because most EMI teachers start learning English as a school subject in Japan, where there is no tolerance for mistakes. Thus, they believe that they must be perfect as teachers. Furthermore, she asserts that the concept of World Englishes is not yet widely accepted in Japan, which makes EMI teachers assume that “native speakers of English” or L1 users of English are better communicators in English.

Another experienced EMI teacher was also interested in learning the more advanced aspects of speaking skills. An experienced teacher could observe her teaching practices from a wider perspective. The following excerpt shows that because the teacher is experienced enough to realize that students are not engaged for 90 min with her current lecture style, she wants to learn how to keep them focused in class. The need to make EMI classrooms more interactive and student-centered has been suggested in several studies [39,45,46].

Excerpt 4: It (what I want to learn) is a motivational lecture mechanism. The training I want to take is a speaking technique that will keep students from getting bored. For example, I would like to ask hot-selling hosts and YouTubers what they are paying attention to every day (B2; taught EMI for 6.5 years).

This suggests that in addition to the difference in the degree of its relative importance, what speaking skills mean to experienced EMI teachers may be different from what they do to less experienced teachers.

Although “(1) Listening skills” were needed less as part of the FD program menu (−0.43 for pooled), they are still important skills, only that they do not seem to be a good training menu for the FD program, given the time constraints.

Excerpt 5: Listening takes time, so I don’t think there is much that can be learned through training (B2; taught EMI for 0.5 year (1 semester)).

Excerpt 6: First of all, I think it is necessary to secure the opportunity and time for listening by yourself and make an effort (currently, the effort is insufficient). … It may be more important to work on your own than going through training (B2; taught EMI for 10 semesters).

3.3. Institutional Support Should Be Prioritized by Position (RQ 3 and 4)

Figure 2 shows the prioritization of institutional support in a standardized BW score. The statement “(1) Recognition and appreciation by institutions and colleagues for their burdens, their efforts, and their contributions to EMI programs” (0.43) was found to be support deemed most necessary. Considering that the lack of recognition and appreciation has been highlighted in previous studies [20,23,28], the fact that this recognition is the most needed institutional support among seven institutional supports, including economic incentives, is a rather surprising finding.

As a full-time teacher put it:

Excerpt 7: My fellow teachers have to do school affairs and research, and the reality is that they do not have enough time to teach in English. The university should understand our situation and take appropriate measures to overcome the difference in teaching styles between Japanese and overseas (full-time teacher).

There is a paucity of studies on how to alleviate EMI teachers’ frustrations associated with lack of recognition and appreciation although the existence of these problems has been highlighted by various studies. Simply saying thank you to EMI teachers cannot alleviate these problems. Studies on the possible solutions are urgently needed. The situation is serious. A study on an EMI program at a Japanese university revealed that EMI teachers’ unwillingness to teach EMI classes is so severe that students know their teachers do not want to be there [47].

Two incentives—“(3) Adjustment of credits for burdens, efforts, and contribution” (0.32) and “(4) A system of pay scales, allowances, and promotions based on burdens, efforts, and contributions” (0.25)—were also part of the highly demanded institutional supports.

Contrary to our expectations and the findings of a previous study, EMI training certificates (support #7) are the least necessary support even for adjunct teachers (−0.60) as some of them are not even tenured; instead, they are looking for a tenured position. Macaro et al.’s study [16] shows that 30.6% of the respondents (teachers) regarded EMI certification as moderately important, 41.8% viewed it as highly important, and 17.1% regarded it as extremely important. A study of a university in Spain demonstrated that certificates accredit and empower instructors and represent one of the three primary measures for the university [31]. However, this does not mean that the certificate is not needed in an absolute sense; it is only less needed in a relative sense.

Contrary to previous studies (i.e., [4,28,43]), students’ English language competence (support #5) was relatively not an issue. The minimum requirement for English language competence in Program A is B2; notably, however, the competence levels of some EMI teachers were below B2 (Table 4).

The comparison by position clearly indicates the stark contrast between “(2) Pedagogical guidelines” (−0.21 vs. 0.10), “(3) Adjustment of credits” (0.58 vs. −0.02), and “(4) A system of pay scales, allowances, and promotions” (0.20 vs. 0.33). Being non-faculty members of institutions, different set of institutional support meets their needs.

Excerpt 8: I think there are of course certain things that should not be done this way in this class. This is probably because of the college or the structure of the curriculum. Therefore, it would be helpful if the program guides us know how this class should be delivered. Of course, I would like to have a certain amount of discretion, but if the program can show us how teaching should be standardized, I feel that would make my teaching much easier (Adjunct teacher).

While the need for pedagogical guidelines for EMI has been indicated [5,20], this statement could imply that for the same applies to adjunct teachers. Because adjunct teachers do not belong to the college, they have no obligation to attend faculty meetings, which is why explicit pedagogical guidelines are critical.

“(3) Adjustment of credits” is needed by full-time teachers (0.58), not by adjunct teachers (−0.02). Therefore, it is understandable that, as an adjunct teacher puts it, “adjunct teachers, can adjust the number of classes to teach by [themselves].” Therefore, economic incentives (support #4) are more important for adjunct teachers. Because full-time teachers are placed in a different situation, they have different views about their preferences when it comes to adjusting credits (support #3) over economic incentives (support #4).

Excerpt 9: Given that I am asked to answer their relative importance, I am grateful for reducing the burden in terms of work-life balance and securing research time than the “salary, allowance, and promotion” of fulltime faculty members who are more fortunate than general households (Fulltime teacher).

A former staff member provided different perspectives. She was of the opinion that the economic incentives (support #4) are more effective than the adjustment of credits (support #3) because the latter may cause a feeling of inequality among faculty members, including those who are not involved in Program A. She was hired as a specialized staff member to support Program A. Her view as someone who worked closely with the program for four years implied that the weight of the burden that EMI teachers have to shoulder to teach in their second language is not understood well enough by others who do not have firsthand experience with EMI. The following excerpt shows that she thought that other teachers would complain if teachers in program A taught less courses than teachers who only taught in Japanese.

Excerpt 10: If you keenly observe, you can see that this professor teaches less and that professor teaches more. However, you cannot see how much allowance a teacher receives. So, showing the number of credits evenly while allowances are not revealed (Former staff).

She felt that the existence of program A had not been recognized.

Excerpt 11: I think that English barrier has an effect, but there were times when I was a little disappointed with the low level of interest (temperature difference) that somehow the faculty and staff who were not involved in Program A had. If there is an opportunity to learn more about the burdens and efforts of teachers involved in Program A and the achievements of able students (including graduates), the overall consciousness will change, and the number of faculty members who support the management will increase, leading to the further development of the faculty (Former staff).

A reason for this low recognition is that Program A is small compared with the Japanese-taught program. Program A receives around 20 to 25 students per year, while the Japanese-taught program in the same college enrolls around 400 students.

She was also concerned that adjunct teachers rarely contacted the office. Therefore, once they were appointed, they taught their classes without guidance, corroborating the need for pedagogical guidance as indicated by the previous utterance by an adjunct teacher.

4. Conclusions

The expansion of EMI is an unstoppable phenomenon that can promote internationalization through the improvement of English language competence along with content learning [4,5,6]. However, there are challenges that must be conquered for EMI programs to be implemented successfully because these programs are offered by universities in non-Anglophone countries and are often driven by top-down policies [8,9,10,11].

Among the challenges that EMI programs face, and considering the limited resources available (e.g., teachers, funds, and time), this study attempted to prioritize FD program menus and other institutional supports. Compiling a list of desired FD program menus and institutional supports is not enough for effective management. To our knowledge, this is the first study to prioritize FD program menus and other institutional supports for improving EMI programs. This study also sheds light on how prioritizations differ by English language competence, EMI teaching experience, and EMI teachers’ positions (e.g., full-time vs. adjunct). The differentiation of prioritization enables a university to target certain groups of EMI teachers effectively on the basis of their most needed FD program menus and institutional supports. One of the novelties of this study was that it sheds light on adjunct teachers; they play a critical role in EMI programs because it is often difficult for universities in non-Anglophone countries to have all classes covered by full-time teachers.

While the Likert scale is often used to elicit respondents’ opinions, this study adopted BWS to evoke responses on how the participants prioritized items on the basis of their relative importance [35]. Although 38 EMI teachers participated in this study, the analyses of FD program menus and institutional supports used 266 (38 respondents × 7 combinations) responses to ensure that more reliable results are obtained. This was achieved by repeating questions with different combinations seven times instead of using it once, as is the case with the Likert scale.

Descriptive statistics revealed that the EMI teachers in this study have various degrees of English language competence, ranging from C2 to A2 in CEFR and that they do not have enough time to participate in FD programs, a clear indication of the need for prioritization. Furthermore, the number of adjunct teachers is not negligible, indicating the importance of listening to adjunct teachers’ voices.

About the FD program menus, overall, EMI teachers recognized the need to improve all the three aspects of EMI competencies: language (speaking skills), pedagogical (teaching styles), and cultural (respecting different communication styles, classroom cultures, and learning styles) [6,11,17,33]. The relative importance of these competencies differs more under English language competence than it does in EMI teaching experience. It indicates that the FD program menus should be tailored according to their English language competence.

About the institutional supports, the recognition and appreciation by institutions and colleagues of EMI teachers’ burdens, their efforts, and their contributions to EMI programs is the most needed form of motivation, among others, including economic incentives. In addition, research on meeting the demands for further recognition and appreciation is an urgent need as we could not identify relevant literature. As full-time teachers and adjunct teachers have different needs, institutional support should be tailored to guarantee its effectiveness. For example, pedagogical guidelines are helpful for adjunct teachers who do not attend faculty meetings to understand what is expected by the program. The utterance by the former staff who had observed both full-time and adjunct teachers substantiate this point. Additionally, they have different preferences for incentives; while the adjustment of credits was preferred by full-time teachers, adjunct teachers preferred a better pay scale system.

In summary, our findings support the effectiveness of tailoring FD program menus and institutional supports based on their prioritizations. A university can focus on prioritized FD menus and institutional supports under various constraints. If resources are limited, it can further target certain groups of EMI teachers with their needed FD program menus and institutional support.

This study has at least three limitations, which elicit topics for future research. First, this study excluded EMI teachers whose primary language is English from the survey as they are out of this study’s scope. However, Inbar-Lourie and Donitsa-Schmidt’s study [32] reveals that preferred EMI teachers are not necessarily those whose primary language is English. For instance, there were only two of them in Program A, and it is assumed that it is not easy for an EMI program to have mainly teachers who are native English speakers in non-Anglophone countries. However, similar to other teachers, these teachers form a critical part of EMI programs. Therefore, they equally need FD menus and institutional support, although the contents of what they need may be different. EMI competence does not only comprise language but also comprises interactions of language, pedagogy, and culture [33].

Second, this study did not include students’ perspectives. As EMI programs comprise interactions among stakeholders, including students, the pedagogical effectiveness of EMI varies according to student profile (e.g., their intrinsic motivations) [46]. Therefore, it is sine qua non to corroborate the triangulation by incorporating students’ perspectives to elicit more credible implications [3,34]. This is because students, language teachers, and EMI teachers have different perceptions regarding challenges experienced in implementing EMI [3]. For example, while students claim the problem is teachers’ inadequate English language competence, teachers claim the problem is students’ English inadequate English language competence. Therefore, research identifying effective support while considering the role played by other stakeholders (e.g., students) should be conducted.

Lastly, in addition to triangulation by stakeholders, it is critical to consider the feasibility of each FD menu and institutional support. While some FD menus and institutional support are expensive, others are not. While some are politically acceptable, others are not. While it is difficult, if not impossible, to measure and compare the cost-effectiveness of each support (e.g., the improvement of an EMI program per dollar or per unit of time invested), some managerial decisions regarding the type of support that is needed may have to consider the feasibility of each support.