Speaker
Description
This presentation examines how peer dynamics in English-medium instruction (EMI) shape participation beyond linguistic challenges. Using Wenger’s Community of Practice framework, it distinguishes peripherality as an enabling entry position from marginality as restricted access to meaningful practice. Based on a longitudinal narrative doctoral study of seven students at a Japanese university, I found that, although all began peripherally, only some moved toward central participation, while many experienced marginality, isolation, and limited belonging in EMI classrooms.
References
Eaves, M. (2009). Learning styles technology and supporting overseas learners. Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, 3, 61-73. https://doi.org/10.1108/17504970910951156
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(1), 5–23.
Tange, H. (2010). Caught in the Tower of Babel: university lecturers’ experiences with internationalisation. Language and Intercultural Communication, 10(2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708470903342138
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
Abstract
Alongside the well-documented linguistic challenges faced by students in English-medium instruction (EMI), the English environment also produces complex peer dynamics for domestic students due to differing contextual knowledge (Tange, 2010) and learning cultures (Eaves, 2009). These dynamics can generate uncertainty about what is accepted and expected in class, shaping how students understand themselves as participants in EMI classrooms.
Within Wenger’s (1998) Community of Practice (CoP) framework, legitimate peripheral participation (LPP) positions newcomers at the periphery of a community, where limited but regular participation can support learning and lead to fuller involvement (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Peripherality is therefore not inherently negative. However, when participation is restricted by others, students may become marginalised, limiting access to meaningful practice and constraining movement toward more central participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
This presentation draws on a three-year longitudinal qualitative doctoral study of seven students enrolled in EMI courses at a Japanese university. Data were collected through regular interviews and reflective journals and analysed following Polkinghorne’s (1995) narrative inquiry typology: first, constructing participant narratives, then comparing across cases to identify recurrent themes.
In this presentation, I highlight one particular finding: although all participants began their EMI experiences on the periphery, only some were able to establish trajectories toward more central participation. Most experienced ongoing marginalisation and isolation, often feeling that they did not fully belong within their EMI settings.
Short summary
This presentation examines how peer dynamics in English-medium instruction (EMI) shape participation beyond linguistic challenges. Using Wenger’s Community of Practice framework, it distinguishes peripherality as an enabling entry position from marginality as restricted access to meaningful practice. Based on a longitudinal narrative doctoral study of seven students at a Japanese university, I found that, although all began peripherally, only some moved toward central participation, while many experienced marginality, isolation, and limited belonging in EMI classrooms.
Keywords
EMI
Legitimate Peripheral Participation
Marginalization
Perceptions of Peers
| Scheduling preference | Anytime on Saturday or Sunday |
|---|---|
| Title | Living on the Edge: Peripherality & Marginality in EMI Communities |