International Journal of Bilingual Education and

Bilingualism

ISSN: 1367-0050 (Print) 1747-7522 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbeb20

A survey of English-medium instruction in Italian

higher education

Francesca Costa & James A. Coleman

To cite this article: Francesca Costa & James A. Coleman (2013) A survey of English-medium
instruction in Italian higher education, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
16:1, 3-19, DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2012.676621

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2012.676621

Published online: 01 May 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2123

View related articles

Citing articles: 43 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rbeb20
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 2013
Vol. 16, No. 1, 3
19, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2012.676621

A survey of English-medium instruction in Italian higher education

Francesca Costa* and James A. Coleman

Department of Languages, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

(Received 8 August 2011; final version received 12 March 2012)

English-taught Programmes (ETPs) have increased exponentially in European

universities over the last 10 years, leading to growing numbers of bilingual
graduates. This study reports on the most recent survey of ETPs in Italian higher
education. A questionnaire completed in 2010 by 50% of Italian universities
addressed both organisational factors (including the number of ETPs, reasons for
adoption and difficulties in implementation) and pedagogical factors (including
recruitment and teachers’ competencies). The findings paint a heterogeneous
picture, with ETPs expanding but still not universal. Issues are analysed according
to university type (public/private) and location, since the divisions between the
wealthy, industrialised North, the Centre and the less developed South are largely
reflected in the profile and status of universities in each geographical zone. All
institutions show a clear-cut focus on content over language.
Keywords: L2-medium instruction; English-taught Programmes; Integrating
Content and Language in Higher Education; Internationalisation

Introduction
In his 2006 overview of English-medium teaching in Europe’s universities, Coleman
(2006, 11) suggested that the process might contribute significantly to the quasi-
universal bilingualism predicted by de Swaan (2001) and echoed by Nettle and
Romaine (2002). The status of higher education in a globalising society and the role
of academics and students in language shift might help create a situation in which
‘the world’s peoples use one or more native languages for local and cultural
communication where their personal identity is engaged, and another for interna-
tional, formal, practical communication’ (Coleman 2006, 11). As we will discuss
later, the accelerated introduction of English-medium higher education in the
intervening years has led ever more European students into a bilingual existence,
with English the language of academic study.
The present study describes the results of a survey of English-taught programmes
(ETPs) in Italian universities conducted in 2010 to establish the current extent of
English-medium teaching in one of Southern Europe’s largest countries. Recent years
have seen a huge expansion in ETPs (Alexander 2008; Coleman 2006; Knight 2008;
Lehikoinen 2004), thanks to:

“ rapid advances in scientific knowledge and consequently in course content

(Wilkinson and Zegers 2008).

*Corresponding author. Email: francesca_costa@hotmail.com

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

4 F. Costa and J.A. Coleman

“ the increasing proportion of knowledge sources such as books, papers and

theses which, for economic, social and prestige reasons, are available only in
English (Wächter and Maiworm 2008; Wilkinson 2004; Wilkinson and Zegers
2007, 2008).
“ the accelerating pattern of academic staff and student mobility (Crandall and
Kaufman 2002; Wächter 2004; Erasmus Student Mobility 2008
2009, http://
ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus/doc/stat/table109.pdf).
“ the near-necessity of English proficiency for graduate employability.

Within Europe, the Bologna Process, initiated in 1999, was designed to harmonise
higher education across Europe, to provide mutual recognition of qualifications, to
enhance mobility among students and graduates and to enable European higher
education institutions (HEIs) to attract international students more easily. But by
2010 the Bologna objectives were far from achieved, and it has been argued
(Alexander 2008; Coleman 2003, 2005, 2009; Goodman 2010; Gnutzmann 2011;
Phillipson 2006; Räisänen and Fortanet-Gómez 2008; Tosi 2006) that the Bologna
Process has undermined the European goal of multilingualism or mother tongue plus
two (policy documents at http://ec.europa.eu/languages/library/key-documents_en.
htm) and advanced the globalised market in higher education through Englishising
the curriculum, without enhancing mobility, comparability or equity. Europe-wide
surveys (Ammon and McConnell 2002; Maiworm and Wächter 2002; Wächter and
Maiworm 2008) show a tripling of ETPs in Europe over five years, with 7% of
responding institutions in 2007 offering programmes in English. These universities
were typically large institutions, mainly in north-east Europe, offering many degree
programmes at Bachelor’s, Master’s and Ph.D. level. In terms of student enrolment,
the overall number was 121,000 in 2007 (Wächter and Maiworm 2008).
Southern European countries have shown slower ETP development, but no data
have been collected since 2007, which is one reason why the present survey was
undertaken. Not only is the spread of ETPs in the service of internationalisation an
important element of the study of English as a lingua franca (Coleman 2006), but
also, at a time of rapid change, and given the links between English-medium
teaching, academic mobility, globalisation and the internationalisation and market-
isation of higher education, Englishising the curriculum can be a matter of policy
interest, competitiveness and even survival at both national and regional levels, and
for individual universities. The context of Italian higher education is distinctive, but
in some senses it is also representative of Southern Europe. For universities in Italy
and across Europe, measures to improve competence in English such as ETPs are as
much economic as educational, since ETPs are open to both foreign and local
students, and fee-paying foreign students raise additional resources. This is
exemplified by a specific section on internationalisation included in the new Italian
law on universities (Legge Gelmini 240/2010) which clearly calls for a strengthening
in the mobility of teachers and students, more cooperation among universities
regarding study and research and the initiation of teaching or study programmes in a
foreign language.

Definition of terms
Teaching content through a language other than that normally used by the
students is variously known as L2-medium instruction (in the case of this study,
 International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 5

English-medium instruction), content based instruction and at higher educational

levels integrating content and language in higher education (ICLHE). Content and
language integrated learning (CLIL) at school level has been increasingly shown to
have a positive effect on learning. In point of fact, CLIL is a term that encompasses
an array of approaches and practices, although its main characteristic is the
integration of content and language. Among the benefits of CLIL are (Wolff 2007,
23): (1) it produces better language learners, (2) it produces better content learners
and (3) it creates motivation for teachers as well as students. Alongside these purely
didactic gains, economic and cognitive ones can be added (Mehisto and Marsh 2011)
and the fact that, as a testimony to its success, there is, as Coyle, Hood, and Marsh
(2010) note, the adoption of CLIL-like approaches across the globe (from Canadian
immersion experiences to L2-medium instruction in south-east Asian countries).
Content and language integrated learning is an entirely European movement,
even if its roots are found in bilingual education. Nevertheless, it has some
peculiarities that distinguish it from other contexts: it safeguards the students’
native language, it is open to all students and it does not automatically target
balanced bilingualism (Garcı́a 2009). Moreover, Lasagabaster and Sierra (2009)
point out that CLIL teachers sometimes lack the necessary competence in the L2 and
that the materials they use are usually abridged.
Parallel to the explosion of CLIL in the last 15
20 years in Europe, there has
been a similar expansion in tertiary instruction. However, CLIL at the tertiary level
has certain unique features that at one and the same time liken it to and distinguish it
from the other educational levels. As in the case of CLIL at the primary and
secondary school levels, at the tertiary level it also goes by different names: ICLHE,
which is the closest synonym to CLIL at the tertiary level, Internationalisation (a
term linked to policy rather than pedagogical choices) and the Adjunct Model, where
the foreign students attend two courses
a language course for linguistic support
and a content course (Brinton, Snow, and Wesche 1989).
Some of the peculiarities of CLIL instruction at the tertiary level are: (1) it is not
a bottom-up approach but a top-down one. In other words, the need for its
implementation is not usually felt by the lecturers but rather derived from a solely
economic-political choice by the university. (2) Precisely for the aforementioned
reasons this way of teaching in English could represent a threat to the L1 of the
students. The fear here is that instruction through English will undermine local
languages and their own scientific tradition (Knight 2008). On the contrary,
Lehikoinen (2004) believes that ETPs have helped Finland to increase its visibility
in Europe. In this sense, Smit (2010) also notes that the coupling of two languages for
adults does not cause cognitive harm or social dissonance. Thus, the age of the
university students plays a key role and CLIL should not represent a threat to the L1,
given that the students are already fully competent in this language.
Several studies have enumerated factors associated with successful L2-medium
instruction policies (Crandall and Kaufman 2002; Mellion 2008): funding, pre-
implementation analysis, full support from the university board, training for
teaching staff, English language training and academic writing support for students,
an efficient International office, international exchanges for both students and
academics, identification of appropriate content, communication and collaboration
and institutionalising the effort. Despite the perceived threat to the L1 of some non-
English-speaking countries, most agree that universities not offering English courses
to their students risk exclusion from the scientific and academic worlds. Similarly,
6 F. Costa and J.A. Coleman

Alexander (2008, 83) highlights the ‘gatekeeper function’ of English in European

studies.
For this study the authors have adopted the superordinate terms ETPs or
English-medium instruction because the data concern English. Nevertheless, the
term ICLHE is also applicable to the situation under study.

The Italian CLIL context

Italy, with a population of around 61 million, has been a single country for only 150
years, and regional disparities in culture, identity and especially wealth are deep-
seated. Economic inequalities between the regions of the industrialised North (which
includes the industrial triangle Milan-Genoa-Turin) and the predominantly agricul-
tural South remain stark, with the four Central regions sharing characteristics of
each. In some Northern regions, per capita GDP is twice that of Southern regions
(Eurostat 2011 http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?datasetnama_r_
e2gdp&langen).
Italy is mainly monolingual, with bilingualism existing only in regions bordering
on other countries (Trentino Alto Adige and Val d’Aosta). Italian is the official
language, although specific measures exist to enhance and preserve several minority
languages and cultures (Albanian, Catalan, Croatian, Friulan, Greek, Ladino,
Occitan, Slovene and Sardinian). Despite the growing international role of English,
Italy lags behind other European countries in terms of multilingualism and in
particular the learning of English (Eurobarometer
http://ec.europa.eu/education/
languages/languages-of-europe/doc137_it.htm). For this reason, since the beginning
of the 1990s several educational reforms have been instituted to improve English
learning skills. These include English from the beginning of elementary school,
teacher training and the implementation of L2-medium instruction at primary and
secondary school. In collaboration with the British Council and the Ministry of
Education, bilingual primary state schools have been created as a pilot project in
Lombardy (http://www.britishcouncil.org/it/italy-bilingual-education.htm); in addi-
tion, recent secondary school reforms and documents (Legge Moratti 53/2003; DL
17.10.2010 n. 226) call for the teaching of one subject in English during the final year
of Liceo (this level provides a deeper preparation that should naturally lead to
university studies
http://archivio.pubblica.istruzione.it/riforma_superiori/nuovesu-
periori/doc/Regolamento_licei_definitivo_16.02.2010.pdf), Istituto Tecnico non
professionale (the school that provides professional preparation aimed at entry into
the working world
http://archivio.pubblica.istruzione.it/riforma_superiori/nuove-
superiori/doc/Regolam_tecnici_def_04_02_10.pdf) and from the third year of Liceo
Linguistico (within the licei this is the school that prepares students in the foreign
languages). Before this law the situation in Italy was highly varied, without any
mapping of the CLIL experiences in schools and with several regions (mainly in the
North) having had significant experiences in this methodology through short-term
modules. Despite this non-uniformity in terms of CLIL programmes, already in 1998
there appeared the first European Translanguage in Europe-CLIL project adminis-
tered by Italy. Since 2001 the Ufficio Scolastico della Lombardia (Lombardy
Educational Authority) has offered an e-learning course in CLIL training (ALI-
CLIL online), and since 2003
2004 the Università Foscari has offered an advanced
course in CLIL.
 International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 7

Italian University system and the situation of ETPs

The majority of Italian universities, both ancient and modern, are public, with only a
small percentage that are private and usually charge higher fees. Universities are
open to all students who have completed secondary school. Some faculties, such as
Medicine, have an initial selection process and numerically limited enrolment. Until
the end of 2010 (Legge Gelmini, 240/2010), the careers of university teachers
progressed through three main levels: researcher, associate professor and full
professor, but from January 2011 the researcher level will be phased out. Recruitment
selection is based on a public competition where scientific output is taken into
consideration.
Innovations such as CLIL require financing. Although there are several forms of
private, regional and European financing (such as the European Social Fund),
especially for research, and students pay modest fees, most of the funding for public
universities comes from the government, with the majority being spent on salaries.
Private universities are financed mainly through private funds and student fees
(ranging from around t1000 to 9000 per year but varying according to income).
They also receive a government contribution based on the withdrawal rate of their
student body.
Italy has been slow to internationalise its universities, and here, too, the South falls
well behind the North and Centre. The Academic Cooperation Association, founded in
1993 to allow national agencies to cooperate in promoting European higher education
worldwide, has 21 members: Italy is not among them. No Italian universities figure in
the top 200 of the World University Rankings (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/
world-university-rankings/). In Shanghai Jiao Tong’s Academic Ranking of World
Universities (http://www.arwu.org/), none of the eight Italian universities in the top 300
are Southern, and only two (Naples and Palermo) of the 21 in the top 500. In the QS
rankings (http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/
2010), of all the Southern universities, only Naples (8) and Catania (20) are
among 20 Italian universities in the top 600. In the Il Sole 24 Ore national rankings,
universities in the South again score low (http://www.ilsole24ore.com/speciali/atenei_
classifica/universita_dati2-tipo_statale.shtml and http://www.ilsole24ore.com/speciali/
atenei_classifica/universita_dati2-tipo_non_statale.shtml). Only Naples, at 16, figures
in the top 20 state universities. Scientific education in Southern Italy lags behind even
at secondary level (OCSE-PISA 2006 http://www.invalsi.it/download/pdf/pisa06_
Primirisultati_PISA2006.pdf).
There are only three recent surveys on ETPs in Italy, none of which is directly
comparable to the present study.

“ Capozio (2004) provides data from 2003 to 2004 in an unpublished

dissertation on CLIL in Italian higher education, covering especially Northern
universities offering at least one ETP. As regards Faculties providing ETPs,
25% are from Economics, 19% from Engineering, 10% Law and 9% Science.
The survey highlights the significance of recruitment of international students,
the predominance of English in L2-medium teaching, the need for greater
effort to adapt teaching, for cooperation between institutions, for a database
of didactic material and finally for support from institutions.
“ The Survey on Education Provision in English Language in Italian Uni-
versities conducted by the Conference of Italian University Rectors (CRUI) in
8 F. Costa and J.A. Coleman

2007 (http://www.crui.it/internazionalizzazione/HomePage.aspx?ref1258#)
provides a picture of the availability of first and second cycle degree
programmes and winter/summer schools in English. The data show (response
rate 100%) that 56 universities have full degree programmes at Bachelor or
Master level and 24 at Doctorate level.
“ Wächter and Maiworm (2008) conducted in 2007 a pan-European survey on
ETPs in institutions participating in the Erasmus programme. They excluded
doctorates, short programmes and individual courses and achieved a response
rate of 38%. In Italy they identified 35 programmes, located at only 12 of 42
responding institutions. Data for individual countries are not always
disaggregated in tables.

These three studies require updating, and the third study is not specific enough for
the Italian context; in addition, it does not take into account doctoral-level
programmes. Compared with the thorough CRUI survey, the current study
demonstrates an increase in ETPs at all levels (Bachelor, Master and Ph.D.
see
the section ‘Subject, level and date of introduction of English-taught courses’).

Methodology
The present article reports on a national questionnaire survey which sought to
investigate what the state-of-the-art of ICLHE in Italy is. The survey was, however,
complemented by a number of case studies involving analysis of actual lectures given
in English on scientific topics, and interviews with the lecturers; occasional reference
is made to these case studies, which are to be published elsewhere. The questionnaire
(please contact authors for details) was based in part on the surveys by Wächter and
Maiworm (2008) and Capozio (2004), in part built ad hoc for this research. Prior to
sending the survey, initial telephone calls established a personal contact and
identified the most appropriate addressee in each university, which included
University deans, the Heads of the Internationalisation project, the Chairs of
English, the Heads of Faculty and the Centro Linguistico di Ateneo (CLA)

University Language Centre. The range of respondents’ titles and roles reflects the
fact that responsibility for and knowledge of ETPs may reside in different locations.
The strategy of contacting multiple respondents proved to be efficient, judging by the
high number of mostly well-informed responses. However, not all respondents may
be aware of the full policy and pedagogical issues, and for this reason some responses
(e.g. on Teaching Materials and Target Language Skills) may reveal whether or not
ETPs have been taken on board by the whole institution or just locally.
The programmes addressed by the questionnaire included:

“ the teaching of non-linguistic subjects (even individual courses) in English (by

mother-tongue or Italian teachers).
“ Teaching as part of three-year degree programmes, master’s programmes and
doctoral programmes; and teaching in specialised institutions.

The questionnaire did not consider:

“ programmes where English is itself the subject being taught (e.g. English
Literature).
 International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 9

The survey contained the following information: a title, an introduction (where the
aim of the research and its context were introduced), detailed information for
completion and the submission deadline. The questionnaire was five pages long (only
three of which were to be filled in) and was divided into three sections (Costa and
Coleman 2010, 23
24):

“ Organisation, including course lists, length of course, funding, dates, reasons

for introducing EMT and the difficulties encountered, whether or not there is
collaboration with foreign universities, experience evaluation, whether or not
the numbers of courses are increasing, whether or not courses are offered in
other languages and whether or not the Bologna Diploma Supplement is
adopted. There were four open- and nine close-ended questions.
“ Teachers and teaching style, including basis for recruiting teachers, compe-
tencies of the teachers, whether or not there is ad hoc training, support
materials, types of lessons and evaluation. All questions were close-ended.
“ Students, including admission and linguistic requirements, the number of
students, planned number of scholarships and whether or not there is any
bonus for students undertaking these courses. There were one open- and two
close-ended questions.

Although closely based on validated instruments (Capozio 2004; Wächter and

Maiworm 2008), the questionnaire was piloted on four fellow researchers and, after
revision, in five Italian universities. Some very minor changes were subsequently
made. On average it took around 15 minutes to fill in the questionnaire.
The questionnaire was sent between March and May 2010 to all 76 Italian
universities (excluding general HEIs without the title of university). Where no
response was given, a follow-up email was sent after two weeks. A total of 38
universities (50%) responded, comprising 7 of 14 private and 31 of 62 public. A total
of 21 responses came from the North, 8 from the Centre and 9 from the South. The
questionnaire was in Italian: this study uses the authors’ own translations. All valid,
unambiguous answers are included in the statistics. Where some respondents chose
more options than required (e.g. ticking two boxes instead of one), answers have been
weighted (e.g. at 50% each).

Results
In the analysis which follows, responding universities are categorised by type (PU,
public or PR, private) and by location (N, North; C, Central; S, South) since these
distinctions are expected to determine different patterns within the overall national
picture. A full 13-page list of English-taught courses is available to bona fide
researchers from the authors, showing institutional type and location, course titles
and date of introduction, but with universities anonymised.

Organisation
English-taught courses and programmes
Institutions were invited to list both single courses and whole Departments/Faculty
programmes, but to exclude those where English was itself the subject being taught
10 F. Costa and J.A. Coleman

ENGLISH-TAUGHT PROGRAMMES IN PUBLIC

AND PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES

86
100 71

% 50 YES

0
PU PR

Figure 1. ETPs in public and private universities.

(e.g. English literature). The reason for including both individual courses as well as
whole programmes was above all based on the alignment of this study with the CRUI
survey, where both typologies are considered. Moreover, individual courses often
represent a pilot project or the start of a larger project and thus provide a more
complete picture of the situation.
English-taught courses exist in most (74%) of the institutions that responded.
Clearly there is a possible bias with this figure: those institutions that presently offer
English-taught courses were perhaps more willing to respond. As might be expected,
English-medium teaching is more prevalent in private universities, being typically
wealthier and more likely to have international links (Figure 1), and in the North and
Centre of Italy (Figure 2), historically always more affluent.

Subject, level and date of introduction of English-taught courses

The faculties with the largest number of single English-taught courses are Economics
(89) and Engineering (26). This is what we would expect, since ETPs, first introduced
in 1992, are quite common for those disciplines which by nature are more
international. Dates of introduction show steady growth from the middle of the
1990s and renewed growth from 2004, with the most recent introductions in 2010.
The first universities to provide ETPs were three Northern private institutions. The
majority of ETPs today are in Northern public universities and this reflects their
share of Italian higher education. Among public universities, only seven Central and
just two Southern provide these programmes or courses, while none of the few
private universities in the Centre or South responded. ETPs are most frequent at
Master’s level (57), followed by Doctoral level (32) and Bachelor (10).

ENGLISH-TAUGHT PROGRAMMES IN NORTH,

CENTRE AND SOUTH OF ITALY

90 87,5
100

% 50 22 YES

0
N C S

Figure 2. ETPs in universities in the North, Centre and South.

 International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 11

Trends
In most universities (69%, representing all private and 60% of public), ETPs had
increased over the previous year, a common trend across European countries. Once
again, Northern universities are ahead of Central universities, with only 50% of
Southern universities recording growth (Figure 3).

Reasons for establishing ETPs

Institutions were invited to select two reasons for introducing ETPs. The principal
reasons can be broken down as follows: 32% to improve international profile; 21% to
attract foreign students, which is closely linked to the previous reason; 24% to prepare
Italian students for the global market, which is corroborated by the fact that there
were predominantly Italophone students at lessons observed in the related study; 8%
to improve national profile and 8% to improve English language proficiency; 5% to
promote interculturality and 1% both to assist students from developing countries and
other. The single other response indicated Erasmus students as the reason for
broadening teaching through English.
The largely economic need to broaden universities’ international horizons thus
provides stronger reasons for implementing ETPs than more didactic and cultural
reasons (improve English language proficiency, promote interculturality and assist students
from developing countries). It is interesting to note the low percentage (8%) for improve
English language proficiency. As Figure 4 indicates, universities attach little importance to
the language aspect of this type of teaching. Very interesting, too, is the miniscule figure
for attract foreign students as a resource, which has to be interpreted as referring to
strengthening the local workforce. It appears to be more important to acquire an
international profile and to improve the competencies and mobility of Italian students.
There are some differences between public and private universities, with the
former marginally more interested in didactic-pedagogic aspects (improve English
language proficiency, promote interculturality, and improve national profile of
university) and offering a wider range of rationales (Table 1).

Languages other than English

Most European CLIL relies on English (Coleman 2006), but 32% of respondents
claimed to use vehicular languages other than English, notably in frontier regions

INCREASE IN ETPs IN THE NORTH, CENTRE

AND SOUTH OF ITALY

100
68
57 50
% 50 YES

0
N C S

Figure 3. Proportion of institutions showing increase in ETPs, by region.

12 F. Costa and J.A. Coleman

REASONS WHY
improve national profile of
university
improve international profile
8% 1% 8% of university
5% attract foreign students

attract foreign students as

32% resource
assist students from
24% developing countries
prepare Italian students for
global market
1% promote interculturality
0%
21%
improve English language
proficiency
other

Figure 4. Reasons for introducing ETPs.

Table 1. Principal reasons for introducing English-taught courses and programmes (rank
order).

Public Private
1 Improve international profile Improve international profile
2 To prepare Italian students for To prepare Italian students for global market/to
global market attract foreign students
3 To attract foreign students To improve national profile of University
4 To improve English language All others
proficiency
5 To promote interculturality
6 To improve national profile of
University
7 To assist students from
developing countries

such as Val d’Aosta and Trentino Alto Adige. One Northern and one Southern
university teach through French; one Northern and one Central institution through
German. The other positive answers were less specific and in fact may reflect
respondents’ uncertainty as to whether other vehicular languages were used at all.

Funding for ETPs

With government funding relatively low, internationalisation can represent a strategy
for attracting more fee-paying students and thus gaining greater economic resources.
 International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 13

Most university ETPs (54%) are internally funded, although 24% allocate extra
funding from their own resources. A total of 10% receive unspecified national funding,
6% EU funding and 6% funding from private organisations. In short, most universities
self-finance their ETPs and see these as an investment in the absence of other
resources. Private universities typically fund the ETPs from existing budgets, whereas
public universities rely more on national and some private funding. Both receive a
little EU funding. Geographically, the little available external funding goes less to
Northern than to more needy Central universities, while ETPs in Southern
institutions remain unfunded.

Collaboration with foreign Universities

A total of 54% of the universities said they collaborate with foreign institutions while
46% said there was no such collaboration. Public universities report fewer
international links (60%) than private ones (100%), reflecting perhaps the cost of
such partnerships or the fact that private fee-paying students will have higher
expectations. It is clear that collaboration with other universities is an additional
feature of internationalisation often linked to ETPs.
Comparing the situation in the North, Centre and South of Italy, in the North
there are more contacts with foreign universities (56%), followed by the Centre
(50%), with no international links in Southern universities. The situation thus echoes
the state of development of ETPs.
A further measure of internationalisation is active participation in the Bologna
Process, the intergovernmental initiative launched in 1999 and designed to harmonise
higher education across Europe, and thus make it more attractive to internationally
mobile students, echoing a principal motivation for introducing ETPs. The 48
signatory countries undertake to provide each graduate with a Diploma Supplement
detailing the nature, level, context, content and status of their higher education
studies. A total of 53% of universities say they use the Diploma Supplement, 39% do
not, 4% did not answer and 4% (all public sector institutions) did not know what the
Diploma Supplement was. Most private universities use the Diploma Supplement,
while public universities are evenly divided.

Teachers and teaching styles

Teacher involvement
Teachers were mostly recruited according to specific competencies (59%), which are
taken to be both linguistic and disciplinary, although 26% claimed that teachers
came forward of their own accord. 15% did not know, but no respondents identified
any form of compulsion to teach in English. The interviews within the case studies
tell a different story, of teachers forced to teach through English regardless of their
target language competence. The discrepancy may arise from some questionnaires
being completed by administrators, remote from the teaching context, and underlines
the desirability of triangulation, especially when dealing with questionnaire surveys.
All private universities appointed exclusively according to specific competencies; the
picture in state universities was more mixed.
14 F. Costa and J.A. Coleman

Teacher profiles
A total of 90% of content lecturers are Italian native speakers, a figure which
corresponds perfectly with what emerged from the case studies (Costa forthcoming).
Only one in 10 was a native speaker of English. Thus, scarce use is being made of
visiting professors even though they represent a valid resource. All non-Italians were
in more prestigious Northern universities, and predominantly in private universities,
perhaps as a result of their more extensive international links.

Teacher training
A total of 77% of the universities answered that they provide no teacher training. This
high figure may reflect the fact that the programmes have been only recently
implemented, that the universities simply do not feel the need for particular training,
or that, in a period of crisis, they cannot afford such training. A total of 15% said
they had provided a language course. Only 8% said they provided methodological
training; this figure is quite low given the real need for improving and updating the
teaching approach of university academic staff. Few private institutions offered any
training; universities in the Central zone provided most.

What percentage of lessons are in the form of formal lectures?

A total of 71% of the universities said they gave formal lectures (as opposed to
seminars with fewer students and greater student
tutor interaction) 70
100% of the
time, 13% opted for 50
70% of the time, while for 16% formal classes occupied less
than half of the total teaching time. These figures testify to a very traditional type of
teaching style. It appears that changing the language of delivery has not led to any
change in teaching style.

What teaching materials are used most often?

Regarding the use of teaching materials, 26% of universities said they used
PowerPoint presentations, a tendency which has been growing in recent years.
Nevertheless, 25% of teachers still rely on textbooks in English, a figure which is
similar to that for PowerPoint and is plausible because most texts for the hard
sciences are in English. In total 22% said they use ad hoc booklets specifically created
by the teachers. Some (11%) said they made use of Internet-based materials, 3%
declared they used videos, while 13% said they were unable to answer the question.
This question was inserted precisely to find out how much of what was going on in
the classroom was known to administrators. The responses reveal that the actual
teaching is still entrusted to the teachers and their teaching styles, with few directives
from the top. As far as teaching materials are concerned, the teaching styles are fairly
diversified and up to date.

Students
Student admission criteria
A total of 57% of universities claim to have an entry test, but this may refer to generic
university admission procedures. And indeed, it would not be permitted except where
 International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 15

there existed a parallel Italian-taught course. Almost half (46%) of the respondents
require some form of international certification such as TOEFL or IELTS; 43% have
no such requirement, while 11% did not respond. A small majority of public-sector
universities (57%) did not require a certificate; a substantial majority of private
institutions did (67%).

Scholarships for students following an ETP

The majority (78%) of universities said they have no scholarships, including all the
Southern universities, while 13% have them only for Italian students and 9%
(exclusively Northern universities) only for foreign students. Thus, only 22% of
Italian universities offer scholarships to students on ETPs, which may reflect a lack
of resources or the normalisation of ETPs.

Target language skills

With regard to language learning, respondents were asked which skills English-
medium teaching develops most among students. A total of 29% stated that listening
is the language skill most developed in the students (a figure which reflects the
findings of the case studies). A total of 20% responded I don’t know, which again
testifies to a lack of communication between the administrative and teaching staff of
the universities. A total of 22% said that speaking skills were developed, which
appears unlikely: in fact, during most of the observed lessons there was little
interaction and very few occasions for the students to speak. Moreover, most of the
exams are written. Finally, only a small proportion of the sample, 16% and 13%,
respectively, declared that reading and writing are the skills promoted most by
English-medium teaching.

Language of assessment
Only slightly more than half (56%) of the sample said that English was the language
used for exams. However, if we add this to the figure for the use of both Italian and
English, then the result is higher. A total of 19% of the universities use only Italian
for exams. All respondent private universities use English only for assessment, but in
state universities the picture is more mixed. In North and Central Italy, English-only
predominates, but Southern universities use English and Italian equally. Only 11% of
respondents awarded additional credits for courses taught through English. As with
scholarships, the responses suggest that institutions see no need for incentives to
attract students to ETPs.

Evaluation of the ETP experience

All respondents evaluated the experience as both positive as regards content, and
positive as regards English language, with no negative answers. For 30% of
universities, the greatest difficulty in implementing ETPs is the lecturers’ insufficient
English language competence, while 31% cite Italian students’ insufficient English
language competence (a finding once again replicated in the case studies). In fact,
many teachers are reluctant to participate in English-medium teaching unless obliged
to do so. Italian students’ inadequacies in English comprise part of the rationale for
16 F. Costa and J.A. Coleman

introducing ETPs to improve their competence, yet 16% declared there is scarce
interest on the part of Italian students. No respondent ticked foreign students’
insufficient English language competence as a problem; 15% declared there is scarce
cooperation between lecturers; and the case studies indeed found little cooperation
between content lecturers and language academic staff. A total of 7% indicated other
reasons (planning and management and scarcity of funding), while 1% cited scarce
interest by foreign students. Perhaps this reflects inadequate publicity for such
programmes. A high non-response rate for this item (17.86%) might suggest
unwillingness to acknowledge problems publicly, rather than unawareness of
their existence.

Conclusions and discussion

European higher education is increasingly a bilingual domain, for both teachers and
students, and the national university survey reported here shows Italy following the
rest of Europe in adopting English-medium instruction for an increasing number of
its courses, albeit with distinctive national features, and differences linked to the
public or private status and the regional location of individual universities.
Comparing the data from the present survey with data from preceding studies is
not straightforward, especially since one of them is not specific to Italy. The survey
which is most complete and similar to the present one (since it analyses both the
courses and the whole programmes at all levels of university education) is the CRUI
survey (2007) on ETPs in Italy, even if it lacks interpretative comment. The present
data show an increase in the number of programmes.
In trying to establish the state of the art in ETPs in Italy, a questionnaire was sent
to all Italian universities. The 50% response rate was high but meant that respondents
were self-selecting, which could have influenced the data.
In general, a number of ETPs were started in 1992 and have increased
considerably since the mid-2000s, although Italy still lags behind other countries in
Europe. The faculties with the most ETPs are Economics and Engineering. Another
common finding is the positive evaluation of the ETP experiences.
The study shows substantial differences between universities in the North, Centre
and South of Italy, which very possibly reflects the historical links in Italy between
institutional prestige, lobbying effectiveness and level of funding received. This
funding differential, which can be seen to perpetuate or accentuate existing
hierarchies, has in principle been addressed under the new reform (Legge Gelmini
240/210).
Private universities are generally wealthier than public institutions, have many
more contacts abroad and are proportionately much more interested in ETPs, as this
allows them to attract more students despite charging higher fees. Public universities
appear to be slightly more interested in didactic-pedagogic questions, although
private universities seem to be more rigorous regarding the use of the target
language, especially in student evaluations.
Another interesting, though perhaps disquieting, outcome of the study is that
some university administrations appear ignorant about what is taking place in the
classroom. Several questions were included partly to uncover how much the
administrations knew about the teaching habits of their academic staff. The lack
 International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 17

of oversight may promote autonomy but perhaps undermine consistent teaching

quality. It is interesting, though, to see whether university administrations are
actually fully engaged with what might be expected to be an institution-wide policy.
If we turn to more purely didactic and pedagogic questions, all the universities
are clearly more attentive to content than to language, and most see no necessity for
a training course (see Aguilar and Rodrı́guez [2012] for the same situation in Spain).
These two factors are obviously linked. If ICLHE is considered to be a different and
innovative approach, then it is clearly requires training. If, however, it is merely a
different vehicle for delivering subject content, then there is no need for any training
for teachers, who already think they know how to teach their subject (this was
underlined by the interviews with some lecturers carried out for the case studies

Costa forthcoming). The survey also reveals that teachers still use very traditional
teaching methods despite the fact that several studies (Klaassen 2001; Räsänen 2008)
have clearly shown the need for more student-centred approaches and a greater
attention to language (work on clarity, training regarding pronunciation and
vocabulary) when teaching through an L2. Of interest is the fact that most of the
teachers are Italian native speakers, and that this pragmatic choice plays a positive
didactic role: students tend to appreciate English-taught courses from native
speakers of their own language, since students relate better to someone who is not
perfectly fluent in English, and thus feel less inhibited toward them, and because, if
the teachers know the students’ native language, they are more careful and better
understand their language difficulties (Bartik et al. 2010).
While the survey does not allow us to disentangle the forces acting on individual
institutions, it seems impossible to separate the Bologna Process from internationa-
lisation, and internationalisation from the Englishisation of Higher Education: to
that extent, the Bologna Process has indeed undermined the EU’s goal of
multilingualism.
Finally, it should be noted that several answers to the questionnaire are not in
line with what was observed in the case studies. Firstly, some teachers were compelled
to participate in ETPs regardless of their proficiency in English. Secondly,
respondents ranked language skills promoted among students as listening, speaking,
reading and writing, in that order. This result is singular, in particular as regards
speaking, since in most of the observed lessons there was very little interaction and
very few occasions for students to speak. Moreover, most of the exams were in
written form.
One of the limits of this study is that the respondents represented a range of
university functions, often the Internationalisation office, but also heads of English
departments or of university language centres (CLAs). It would be interesting to
undertake a further study to explore differences among the respondents. It would
also be valuable to gain more information directly from the lecturers although this is
beyond the scope of this study. It would have been impossible to get adequate
coverage contacting individual teachers in all Italian universities, as there is little
access to who they might be and few resources for a more detailed study. Moreover,
there is a need for further studies using different methods to establish and to test the
actual practice of ETPs. A study on the provision of languages other than English
should be carried out. However, this issue was beyond the scope of the present study.
18 F. Costa and J.A. Coleman

Acknowledgements
The parts of the paper have been subdivided into: Introduction
Coleman; Definition of
Terms
Costa; The Italian CLIL Context
Costa; Italian University System and the
Situation of ETPs
both authors; Methodology
Costa; Results
Costa; Conclusions and
Discussion
both authors.

References
Aguilar, M., and R. Rodrı́guez. 2012. Lecturer and student perceptions on CLIL at a Spanish
University. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 15, no. 2: 183
97.
Alexander, R. 2008. International Programmes in the German-speaking World and English-
ization: A critical analysis. In Realizing content and language integration in higher
education, ed. R. Wilkinson and V. Zegers, 77
95. Maastricht: Maastricht University
Press.
Ammon, U., and G. McConnell. 2002. English as an academic language in Europe. Frankfurt:
Peter Lang.
Bartik, K., C. Maerten, I. Tudor, and J. Valcke. 2010. A discussion brief of content and language
integrated learning (CLIL) at the Faculty of Applied Sciences. Bruxelles: Université Libre
de Bruxelles.
Brinton, D., M. Snow, and M. Wesche. 1989. Content-based second language instruction.
New York: Newbury House.
Capozio, C. 2004. CLIL
A European response to the internationalization of education: A
survey of Italian institutions. Unpublished Dissertation. Università Ca’ Foscari of Venice.
Coleman, J.A. 2003. A Bolognai Folyamat és az európai nyelvtanárképzés jövöje [The bologna
process and the future of European language teacher training]. Modern Nyelvoktatás
(Modern Language Teaching) IX, no. 4: 3
12.
Coleman, J.A. 2005. New contexts for university languages: The Bologna Process, globalisa-
tion and employability. Proceedings of Navigating the new landscape for languages
conference SOAS, June 2004, London. http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/paper.aspx?
resourceid2255
Coleman, J.A. 2006. English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language
Teaching 39, no. 1: 1
14.
Coleman, J.A. 2009. Bologna, mobility and the marketisation of higher education. Paper
delivered to the University Council for Modern Languages workshop The Bologna
Process and its Implications for Languages Schools/Departments in UK HEIs, Kings
College, July 3, London, UK. http://www.ucml.ac.uk/events/03-07-09.html
Costa, F. forthcoming. Content lecturers’ views of teaching through English in a ICLHE
Context. In CLIL: Research, policy and practice, ed. S. Breidbach and B. Viebrock.
Frankfürt: Peter Lang.
Costa, F., and J.A. Coleman. 2010. Integrating content and language in higher education in
Italy. Ongoing Research. International CLIL Research Journal 1, no. 3: 19
29.
Coyle, D., P. Hood, and D. Marsh. 2010. CLIL content and language integrated learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crandall, J., and D. Kaufman, eds., 2002. Content -based instruction in higher education
settings. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Practice Series.
de Swaan, A. 2001. Words of the World: The Global Language System. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Garcı́a, O. 2009. Bilingual education in the 21st Century. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gnutzmann, C. 2011. 30 Jahre Frühjahrskonferenz. Die Perspektive Mehrsprachigkeit vor
dem Hintergrund des Englischen (als ‘‘killer language’’). In Fremdsprachen lehren und
lernen: Rück- und Ausblick, ed. K-R. Bausch, E. Burwitz-Melzer, F. G. Königs and H-J.
Krumm, 17
25. Tübingen: Narr Verlag (Giessener Beiträge zur Fremdsprachendidaktik).
Goodman, B.A. 2010. Higher education in Ukraine: European cooperation at what political and
linguistic cost? http://www.utoronto.ca/jacyk/gss2010/papers/goodman_highereducationi-
nukraine_0209%5B1%5D.pdf
 International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 19

Klaassen, R. 2001. The International University Curriculum: Challenges in English-medium

Engineering Education. Doctoral thesis. Delft: Delft University of Technology. http://
repository.tudelft.nl/view/ir/uuid%3Adea78484-b8c2-40d0-9677-6a508878e3d9/
Knight, J. 2008. Higher education in Turmoil. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Lasagabaster, D., and J.M. Sierra. 2009. Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences
than similarities. ELT Journal 64, no. 4: 376
5.
Lehikoinen, A. 2004. Foreign-language-medium Education as National Strategy. In
Integrating content and language. Meeting the challenge of multilingual higher education,
ed. R. Wilkinson, 41
8. Maastricht: Maastricht University Press.
Maiworm, F., and B. Wächter. 2002. English-language-taught Degree Programmes in European
higher education: Trends and success factors. Bonn: Lemmens.
Mehisto, P., and D. Marsh. 2011. Approaching the economic, cognitive and health benefits of
bilingualism: Fuel for CLIL. In Content and foreign language integrated learning, ed. Y.
Ruiz de Zarobe, J.M. Sierra, and F. Gallardo del Puerto, 21
47. Bern: Peter Lang.
Mellion, M. 2008. The challenge of changing tongues in business University education. In
Realizing content and language integration in higher education, ed. R. Wilkinson and V.
Zegers, 212
27. Maastricht: Maastricht University.
Nettle, D., and S. Romaine. 2002. Vanishing voices: The extinction of the World’s languages.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Phillipson, R. 2006. English, a Cuckoo in the European higher education nest of languages?
European Journal of English Studies 10, no. 1: 13
32.
Räsänen, A. 2008. Turning ESP/EAP for mobility, employability and expertise: A pedagogical
process of change in focus, insight, and practice. In ESP in European higher education, ed.
I. Fortanet-Gómez and C. Räisänen, 247
66. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Group.
Räisänen, C., and I. Fortanet-Gómez. 2008. The state of ESP teaching and learning in
Western European higher education after Bologna. In ESP in European higher education,
ed. I. Fortanet-Gómez and C. Räisänen, 11
51. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Group.
Smit, U. 2010. English as a Lingua Franca in Higher Education. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
Tosi, A. 2006. The devil in the kaleidoscope. Can Europe speak with a single voice in many
languages? In Reconfiguring Europe: The contribution of applied linguistics, ed. C. Leung
and J. Jenkins, 5
20. London: Equinox.
Wächter, B. 2004. Higher education in a changing environment. Bonn: Lemmens.
Wächter, B., and F. Maiworm. 2008. English-Taught Programmes in European higher education.
The Picture in 2007. Bonn: Lemmens.
Wilkinson, R., ed. 2004. Integrating content and language. Meeting the challenge of multilingual
higher education. Maastricht: Maastricht University Press.
Wilkinson, R., and V. Zegers, eds. 2007. Researching content and language integration in higher
education. Maastricht: Maastricht University Press.
Wilkinson, R., and V. Zegers, eds. 2008. Realizing content and language integration in higher
education. Maastricht: Maastricht University Press.
Wolff, D. 2007. CLIL: Bridging the gap between school and working life. In Diverse
contexts-converging goals: CLIL in Europe, ed. D. Marsh and D. Wolff, 15
25. Frankfürt:
Peter Lang.