Abstract:

This chapter reports on the perceived beliefs of some lecturers regarding English as a medium of instruction (EMI) policy creation and enactment at a university in Nepal. The analysis of interviews with the lecturers revealed their motivations for promoting EMI embedded in their expectation to globally recognized qualifications and equip graduates with English proficiency for global job opportunities, study abroad, and economic benefits. The findings indicate that the university’s adoption of the EMI policy is not necessarily developed in response to the local realities but is rather guided by neoliberal ideologies and motivations. The lecturers seem to choose “profit” (securing international jobs and study abroad opportunities) over “pride” (local culture, knowledge, and identity). Hence, it appears that the EMI policy is likely to cause English to displace Nepali and other local languages from higher education and perpetuate the English-only hegemonic ideology. 

Abstract:

his chapter provides a macro-level analysis of political and economic changes and the ways these changes have shaped and reshaped the EMI policy practices in HE vis-à-vis Nepal’s multilingual ecology. It demonstrates the ways MoI policies in Nepal’s HE have undergone a series of roller-coaster changes over decades, scuffling between the nationalist ideology(for the promotion of the Nepali language) and the neoliberal ideology (the English language), and further discusses the factors (re)shaping the EMI policy and its models. Drawing on the analysis, I argue that the EMI policy is a neoliberal endowment for Nepal’s HE that has been developed through the state’s policies and dispositions of privatization, internationalization and capitalism, creating a discourse of a market-driven education system that appreciates commodified languages and social semiotics and undermines local realities.

Abstract:

Despite the state’s commitment to the mother-tongue-based multilingual education policy, the use of English as a medium of instruction (EMI) is widespread in Nepal. Previous studies have documented the ideologies and practices of EMI policy, but the context of Madhes (Southern Nepal) is still underexplored. This chapter reports on the findings from an ethnographic exploration of the EMI policy practices in a public school located in a minoritized ethnic community in Birgunj, Nepal. Drawing on theories of “language ideology” and “symbolic power/violence,” this chapter argues that the ideology and practices of EMI policy create a context of symbolic violence and social reproduction for Madhesi ethnic and class minoritized children, while elite and dominant ethnic groups are endowed with educational privilege. Framed within neoliberal and nationalist language ideologies, EMI has become the most celebrated but an unplanned and unequal policy model of education. Further, languaging practices in the EMI school reveal the legitimacy of English and Nepali over students’ mother tongue, developing a case of political, educational, and psychological struggles for Madhesi children. I argue, in the chapter, that a plurilingual practice cannot be fully claimed as liberating without including students’ mother tongue.

Abstract:

This chapter provides an overview of critical literacies in South Asia. We discuss the theories and practices of literacy education in the region through a review of the existing literature. Drawing on the global contemporary discussion on critical literacy, the chapter traces the development and challenges of critical literacy in South Asian countries and suggests some major implications for the future directions for effectively incorporating a critical lens in literacy education. We also highlight our own responsibilities for social justice as academics.

Abstract:

This chapter attempts to reimagine the critical work in preparing preservice teachers in order to address the growing linguistic super-diversity in the United States, using Cochran-Smith’s (2003) eight-question framework for multicultural teacher education, which includes questions related to diversity, ideology, knowledge, teacher learning, teacher practice, recruitment, outcome, and program coherence. This chapter first outlines the advantages and limitations of single-axis framework of diversity that teacher education programs have adopted in preparing teacher candidates to teach minoritized students in the past few decades. We argue that while significant advancement has been made to traditional categories of diversity in relation to locally born minority groups, less emphasis has been placed on linguistic diversity brought about through global migration. We propose an additive, intersectional lens of incorporating linguistic diversity with other traditional diversity categories and outline the key issues of ideology, knowledge, teacher learning and practice, recruitment and retention, outcome evaluation, and program coherence to consider when pursuing such an intersectional agenda.

 Abstract:

 To identify the emerging trends and patterns across language policies that are in place in different host countries, this chapter examines the statuses and scopes of immigrant language policies and programs in several countries in Europe, Australia, and North America. A cross-country analysis shows that the political discourses of these countries are often contradicting on-the-ground realities. Despite increasingly pluralistic immigrant and refugee populations, contemporary language policies are found to enforce an assimilationist, monolingual linguistic citizenship. Further, despite recent policy shifts to attract highly skilled workforce, language programs still focus on basic skills training for rapid employment in the low-paid labor market and fail to cater to the newcomers’ population that are heterogeneous in educational levels, employment experiences, and personal needs. Finally, language instruction in the current programs often focuses on teaching a set of apolitical skills with little relevance to the racial, gender, and other forms of inequalities associated with language outside the classroom. These contradictory discourses suggest an urgent need to address the ideological and implementational disconnections in immigrant and refugee language policies and practices around the world. Recognizing these gaps offers possibilities to transform the power structure within these spaces for the successful and equitable integration of immigrants and refugees.