Repositioning English-Medium Instruction in a Broader International Agenda: Insights from a Survey on Teacher Professional Development

As a result of the internationalization of higher education across the globe, many programmes in non-Anglophone countries are shifting to English-medium instruction (EMI) to attract international students and staff, develop global skills in the home student body and increase employability (Dafouz and Smit 2020). Against this background, the purpose of this article is to argue for the need to reposition EMI teacher professional development (TPD) in a broader engagement portfolio, one that aligns more directly with the internationalization strategies of universities and that incorporates all the agencies involved. Adopting an applied linguistic angle, this study focused specifically on the Strategic Action Plan for TPD implemented between 2016-2019 at a large Spanish university. Methodologically, the study drew on an intra-university survey addressed to academic staff (n=2091) as a needs-analysis to tap into lecturers’ views of internationalization and EMI. The results will be useful for universities wishing to develop EMI TPD initiatives from an international perspective. The study closes with a reflection on the implications for the stakeholders involved, from university management, to academic staff, EMI educational developers and English language specialists.


Introduction
Since the turn of the millennium, the internationalization of higher education (hereafter IoHE) has shifted from being a peripheral phenomenon to one that is central, and from dealing mainly with student mobility and exchange programmes to being equated with high-quality education and innovation (Knight and De Wit 2018). As a result, universities worldwide have engaged in various strategies to internationalize their campuses. One such strategy concerns the use of English as a medium of instruction (EMI) in university settings where national languages were traditionally used (Smit and Dafouz 2012). The aim behind this thinking is twofold: first, attracting international students and staff, and second, developing global skills in the home student body, and increasing their employability (Dafouz and Smit 2020;Egron-Polak and Hudson 2010). Quantitatively, global reports on higher education institutions (HEIs), such as those of the OECD, show that numbers of international students have grown steadily over the recent years. In 2015 the figure amounted to 33 million or 5.6% of all HE students in the OECD countries (OECD 2017,286-287). This phenomenon, combined with the widely growing demand for English language learning documented by surveys from the International Association of Universities (IAU) (see for example, Egron-Polak and Hudson 2010), point to the increasingly important role EMI is playing in nondominant English-speaking settings (Morell et al. 2014).
However, the fast growth of EMI across the world, has not been accompanied by the provision of teacher professional development (hereafter TPD) programmes. A study across 22 HEIs in Europe revealed that 30% of the surveyed universities believed that TPD for EMI was not needed at their institutions, and over 70% of TPD courses that were offered focused mainly on language skills, meaning that less than half of the HEIs (49%) surveyed provide their EMI teaching staff with training concerning pedagogical issues (see O'Dowd 2018). Studies such as this reveal the widespread assumption, at least in the early years of EMI implementation, that proficiency in English was enough for lecturers to teach in an EMI setting. Nevertheless, research has shown that in addition to English proficiency, lecturers need to develop a specific 'set of skills and competences […] to teach internationalised curricula in classrooms characterised by a diversity of students' linguistic and cultural backgrounds' (Lauridsen 2017, 25). While the nature of these skills and competences is largely contingent on what type of IoHE is implemented (see section 2) and the particular context of the HEI, the principles proposed by Hudzik (2011Hudzik ( , 2015 in his comprehensive internationalization (CI) framework, along with those by Leask (2015, 96-103) on internationalization of the curriculum, provide a valuable departure point for examination. Furthermore, and given the applied linguistic focus of this paper, recent sociolinguistic and ecolinguistic conceptualizations of present-day HEIs and their resulting multilingual teaching and learning practices are, clearly, of great importance (see for example, Soler and Gallego-Balsà 2019; Dafouz andSmit 2016, 2020;Kuteeva et al. 2020), especially as language issues are often invisible (Saarinen and Nikula 2013), to the point that language 'is not in and of itself a constitutive factor of internationalization' (Lauridsen 2017, 28).
Against this background, the purpose of this article is to argue for the need to reposition EMI within a broader engagement portfolio, one that aligns more directly with the overall internationalization strategies of HEIs and thus goes beyond English language instruction. Such an approach will enable EMI TPD programmes to incorporate the different agencies involved in the multi-level process of internationalization (Maassen and Musselin 2009), from content lecturers and language specialists to administrative staff, educational developers and university management (see Dafouz 2018;Dafouz and Smit 2020, chapter 5), and, at the same time, provide coherence between these various levels of organization (Cotzart et al. 2015).
To this end, the Universidad Complutense de Madrid will be used as a case in point to describe how an online intra-university survey, addressed to the whole academic community (n=2091), served as a preliminary needs analysis to identify, in 2016, lecturers' views with regard to TPD in general, and EMI and internationalization in particular.
Structurally, this article will firstly describe the complementary theoretical frameworks used in this study. Secondly, it will explain the university context where the research was carried out, and the setting up of the TPD Strategic Action Plan. Thirdly, it will display the results drawn from the online survey both from a quantitative and a qualitative perspective, paying special attention to lecturers' personal comments on internationalization and English in HE. Fourthly, these comments will serve to illustrate how lecturers' views helped to inform the development of several TPD courses in the area of internationalization and EMI. Finally, the study will close with the opportunities and challenges that the repositioning of EMI from a broader international agenda presented for the university under scrutiny.

Theoretical underpinnings
One significant difficulty in discussing internationalization stems from the many different terms employed to label the phenomenon, and which, although often used interchangeably, in fact refer to different realities. Traditionally, internationalization abroad is regarded as the most typical example, with student and staff mobility as its defining feature. The second term, internationalization at home (IaH) aims to develop global and intercultural skills in home students and often uses EMI as a way to achieve this (De Wit et al. 2015, 49-50). Finally, internationalization of the curriculum (IoC) has sought to integrate international and intercultural dimensions into the formal and informal curriculum of all students within domestic learning environments (Beelen and Jones 2015).
The label comprehensive internationalization (CI) encompasses all three terms above as it is defined as a 'commitment, confirmed through action, to infuse international and comparative perspectives throughout the teaching, research, and service missions of higher education' (Hudzik 2011, 6). Such a broad understanding shapes the institutional ethos and values of the entire higher education enterprise and, therefore, it is essential that it is embraced by institutional leadership, governance, faculty, students, and all academic service and support units. In other words, CI is an institutional imperative, not simply a 'desirable possibility' (Hudzik 2015, 6). The purpose of loosely adapting the CI heuristic to this study is to recognize a diversity of approaches to internationalization, while, at the same time, allowing each institution to choose its own path and its particular contribution consistent with its missions, student population, TPD programmes, resources, and values.
Six interconnected target areas have been identified as necessary to achieve comprehensive internationalization (figure 1) 1 .

Figure 1. Framework for comprehensive internationalization
Due to space limitations, this study will concentrate on only one of the target areas, namely Faculty policies and practices given that faculty is directly aligned with TPD, and that lectures are the primary drivers of any teaching and research. Lecturers, moreover, play a pivotal role in campus internationalization and thus it is vital to ensure that they have opportunities to develop international skills and competences and can also incorporate international perspectives into their teaching (Leask 2015).
In addition to a CI perspective, the study adopts a sociolinguistic and ecolinguistic framework (Creese and Martin 2003) to EMI, one that examines in a holistic and comprehensive manner how English-Medium Instruction, (or Education, EME) 'is a dynamic, complex and highly situated phenomenon which comes in different shapes and forms' (Dafouz and Smit 2020, 11). In short, an EME approach regards present-day HEIs as 'sites where bilingual and multilingual education, whether official or unofficial, partial or comprehensive, pedagogically explicit or implicit, may be represented' (Dafouz and Smit 2016, 399). These theoretical principles will be revisited in more detail in the Findings and Discussion section.

The Context: Universidad Complutense de Madrid
With over five centuries of history, Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM) is a large, state-run, research-intensive university with nearly 80,000 students, around 6,000 lecturers and 3,000 administration staff. At UCM, student mobility has always been actively promoted. In 2017-18, for instance, the number of outgoing UCM students was over 1,500, and incoming students surpassed 1,600 2 , making this institution one of the top destinations for international students in Europe.
Although officially endorsed across the whole university in the form of the 'Plan for Curricular Internationalization' since 2016, internationalization at home (IaH) has been adopted more rapidly by some schools than others. Four pioneering schools (i.e., Economics and Business Administration, Education, Computer Science and Psychology) started offering degrees in English in the early 2000s under the Bologna Plan. Other schools have gradually followed suit, namely Social Work, Sociology, History, Physics and Medicine. The 'Plan for Curricular Internationalization', approved by the Governing Council in 2016, endorses a series of measures to support teaching and learning in a more international fashion. The Plan is structured along three axes: foreign language (English) accreditation/certification for lecturers, TPD and incentives, all of which fall into the 'Faculty Policies and Practices' target area of the CI framework. Briefly, the Plan requires a B2 (CEFR) English proficiency level for students enrolling in 'bilingual', or EMI, degrees and C1 (CEFR) for lecturers teaching on these programmes. Second, the Plan provides TPD programmes that are open to, but not compulsory for all UCM teachers. Third, incentives are offered in the form of a bonus scheme with reduction in teaching hours to enable lecturers to prepare, develop or adapt materials in English.
Unlike other countries where there are national initiatives and TPD is mandatory for all university lecturers, such as the 'Teaching Excellence Framework' used in the UK or the 'University Teaching Qualifications' 3 in the Netherlands, in Spain, no pedagogical qualifications are, to date, needed to teach in HE. It is precisely to fill this gap that the UCM implemented in parallel to internationalization measures, the Strategic Action Plan (or SAP), known as 'Plan Integral de Formación del Profesorado' 4 (Comprehensive Teacher Training Plan) in 2016. The next section will go back in time to explain briefly how this comprehensive TPD was initially devised.

The Teacher Professional Development Survey
In 2016, an intra-university survey was conducted (November-December 2016) amongst all the academic staff at UCM (5705 teachers) to ascertain the training needs that lecturers identified in their teaching practice. The survey was coordinated by the 'Unit for Continuous Professional Development' (Centro de Formación Permanente) within the SAP.
In order to design the survey, a working group was set up comprising ten representatives from different areas, namely education, linguistics, computer sciences, online learning, professional growth, documentation and psychology of learning. After several meetings and discussions, seven main areas were identified by the working group as being strategic for the first stage of the TPD plan. These were: I. Online teaching/learning and research; II. Research; III. Internationalization of teaching/learning and research; IV. Documentation; V. Management, professional development and growth; VI. Pedagogical tools and strategies; and VII. Cross-curricular skills and strategies.
Generally speaking, these seven areas aimed to improve the quality of teaching and learning through the acquisition of relevant skills, competencies and innovative methodologies. Area number III, Internationalization of teaching/ learning and research, mainly addressed the skills and competences that lecturers deemed necessary for their teaching in international and intercultural settings (e.g., communicative oral skills to use in the classroom, academic writing for publishing in English, conference presentation skills, intercultural competence building, internationalization of the syllabi, etc.).
The survey contained 50 items, which included demographic data (e.g., participants' sex, age, discipline, school or department, type of contract) and other relevant information, such as previous experience in TPD programmes, preferred timetable to attend TPD courses, or the importance given to this type of training. Additionally, lecturers were asked to rank these seven areas in order of importance on a Likert scale (from 1, not important, to 4, very important) and to provide further comments if they wished. These open comments proved to be of great interest to the working group in terms of informing the development of several TPD courses (see section 5.2).

Teacher Professional Development Survey: Findings and Discussion
In order to display the findings in an organised manner, from more general to more particular, this section will address, first, the TPD survey, offering an overview of the UCM through considering the quantitative data; second, it will focus on lecturer comments examining, more particularly, their views on the roles of English, Spanish and other foreign languages in the process of internationalization; and third, it will explain briefly how these comments were used to inform the development of TPD courses for internationalization at UCM.

Teacher Professional Development survey: Quantitative data
Of the UCM target audience addressed through the online survey (5705 academic staff), 2091 responses were received (response rate: 36.6), 46% of which were from male lecturers and 54% from females. By age group, the largest group with 35% were those aged between 31 and 45 years old, followed closely by those in the 46-55 group (32%), 29% of lecturers being over 56 years old, and only 4% under 30. This result shows that, in general terms, interest in TPD was shared by UCM lecturers of all ages, although a little higher in the 31-45 year-old age group.
Regarding type of contract, most of the respondents were grouped under the four main types found in the Spanish system: part-time lecturer employed by the university (Asociado 20.4%), full-time lecturer employed by university (21% Contratado Doctor), full-time lecturer employed by state as a civil servant (TU 33.2%) and full professor (9.8% Catedrático). The remaining 15.6% comprises other posts such as visiting professors and emeritus professors. In this case, the data shows that civil servant teachers (TU) responded in a higher number to the questionnaire, a finding that suggests that such lecturers seek to improve their teaching skills once professionally established in the university. In a study on lecturers' identities in EMI teaching contexts, Dafouz (2018, 545) found that many lecturers see the change to English-language teaching as an 'opportunity to enhance their linguistic, as well as their social and economic capital, providing for a more promising future.' By knowledge areas, 31% of respondents belonged to the Social Sciences and Law, 25% to the Health Sciences, 20% to the Natural Sciences, 19% to Arts and Humanities, and 5% to Architecture and Engineering. These percentages largely align with the overall number of lectures in each knowledge area at UCM. in the university. In a study on lecturers' identities in EMI teaching contexts, Dafouz (2018, 545) found that many lecturers see the change to English-language teaching as an 'opportunity to enhance their linguistic, as well as their social and economic capital, providing for a more promising future.' By knowledge areas, discipline, 31% of respondents belonged to the Social Sciences and Law, 25% to the Health Sciences, 20% to the Natural Sciences, 19% Arts and Humanities, and 5% Architecture and Engineering. These percentages largely align with the overall number of lectures in each knowledge area at UCM.

FIGURE 2. Lecturer participation by knowledge area
By schools, the school of Philology had the highest number of respondents with 147, followed by the school of Medicine with 141, Economics with 137 and Education with 128. Without going into detail, as this would fall beyond the scope of this paper, lecturers from each of the 26 schools that comprise the UCM took part.
At the time of the survey (November-December 2016), the area of Internationalization of teaching/ learning and research was ranked the highest, at 2.87 on the 4-point Likert scale, followed very closely by Online teaching/ learning and research which scored 2.86. While the reasons for this high interest in internationalization were not overtly revealed in the survey, it could be argued that it was because this area had not been covered previously in any TPD programme at UCM and was therefore perceived as more necessary by the surveyed lecturers. Furthermore, as mentioned above a number of schools had already initiated EMI degrees and were in need of institutional support and deemed internationalization a priority area of teacher training.

Lecturers' comments on the Teacher Professional Development Programme
As stated earlier, the survey included a section for open comments, where respondents were invited to include further observations. This section collected over 800 comments 5 (n=813), which ranged from appreciation of the university offering TPD courses, to suggestions for specific components to be added to certain courses or areas, as the following examples illustrate: (1) Lo importante es que haya formación desde la UCM, que hace varios años desapareció (621) [The important thing is that there is training from the UCM, which disappeared several years ago].
(2) Considero que la formación y promoción del profesorado es muy importante para conseguir una enseñanza de calidad en una sociedad tan competitiva como la actual. La Universidad debe cuidar a sus profesores y nosotros debemos cuidar de nuestra Universidad (697). [I believe that the training and promotion of teachers is very important to achieve quality teaching in a society as competitive as the current one. The University must take care of its teachers and we must take care of our University].
5 Lecturer comments have not been edited and are thus faithful to the original. The number at the end of the quote refers to their order in the survey. Translations into English are by the author of the article and have prioritised resemblance to the Spanish version.
(3) Creo que los cambios socioculturales y en la propia carrera docente e investigadora requieren una adaptación institucional inmediata. Considero que uno de los pilares de la transformación es la formación del profesorado y el PAS, pero ha de ir acompañado de un mayor apoyo institucional en todos los ámbitos (docente, investigador, de gestión y clínico) (704). [I believe that sociocultural changes in the career of teaching and research itself require an immediate institutional adaptation. I consider that one of the pillars of the transformation is the training of teachers and administrative staff, but it must be accompanied by greater institutional support in all areas (teaching, research, management and clinical)].
Focusing on the concrete area of internationalization, of these 813 comments, 72 explicitly mentioned the word 'English' ('inglés'), 45 referred to 'languages' more generally, ('idiomas/lenguas') and 15 mentioned 'Spanish' ('español'). While most comments related to English and other languages appeared in the area of Internationalization (a total of 53), references to the use of English for research and professional purposes (Area II. Research) were also frequent, as the examples below illustrate: (4) Es fundamental que haya formación en cómo escribir y publicar en revistas de impacto en inglés (34). [It is essential that there is training on how to write and publish in English high-impact journals].
(6) Necesitamos cursos de elaboración y redacción en inglés de proyectos de investigación competitivos internacionales y europeos, etc (373). [We need courses on how to plan and write up international and European researchfunded projects, etc. in English.] Three major themes emerged from the lecturers' comments related to internationalization: the need for English language provision, a request for foreign languages other than English to be used for internationalization, and the valuable role of the Spanish language in education and in international communication.
Focusing on the first group of comments, the need for English provision is mentioned explicitly in 26 responses (49% of the responses in the section devoted to Internationalization). This reference to English includes both the need for general English courses (or English as a Foreign Language/EFL), which accounts for 32% of the comments, but more particularly for English for Specific Purposes (ESP) and Academic Purposes (EAP), which make up 68% of the responses. While such a demand for English provision amongst lecturers is not new (see for example, Lasagabaster, 2018) its explicitness in the survey may be linked, as stated earlier, to the university's 2016 language policy which required a C1 (CEFR) level for all lecturers engaged in EMI programmes. The policy also stipulates that lecturers need to be officially certified through standardized exams (e.g. Cambridge Examinations, TOEFL or CertAcles). Against this backdrop, some comments expressed the view that such exams be offered free of cost to all, and not only to those lecturers engaged in EMI, as these quotations show: (7) A ver si es cierto que podamos de una vez asistir a cursos de inglés de forma gratuita y en horarios racionales!! (363 Regarding the types of English provision requested, whether general EFL or ESP/ EAP, differences in lecturer responses seem to depend on the knowledge areas they come from. Academics from the Natural Sciences, where very specialised and technical vocabularies are used, usually showed more interest in ESP courses than those from the Social Sciences. Kuteeva and Airey (2014) argue that general language policies within HEIs may not adequately take into account the knowledge area differences that are found in (English) language use. They also suggest that disciplines (e.g. biology, economics, history, etc) vary substantially in the academic value attributed to English and to disciplinary literacy practices in general. Similar results have been found in other EMI settings. Pecorari et al. (2011, 66), for instance, reported that in Denmark EMI teachers 'sometimes could not find the words they needed'. In Spain, lecturers self-reported a significant reduction in their vocabulary in English. This is of particular concern for teachers in the Humanities as for them 'the form is as important as the message' (Doiz et al. 2019, 157). Some differences between disciplines can be seen in these comments: (9) Como toda mi investigación se realiza en inglés es indispensable que sepamos escribir artículos de impacto en inglés sin necesidad de pagar a traductores (403). [As all my research is carried out in English, it is essential that we know how to write articles with impact in English without having to pay translators].
(10) El PDI de Química no tenemos ninguna formación en educación. Solo en conocimientos. Se nos forma y evalúa para investigar, no para enseñar. Además, siendo el inglés una herramienta de trabajo fundamental e imprescindible en nuestra área, no recibimos ninguna formación en ese sentido, solo lo que corre por nuestra cuenta. Otros colectivos que pienso que lo necesitan menos, sí reciben cursos de inglés. En nuestro caso se nos da por hecho que sabemos inglés (708). [Chemistry lecturers do not have any training in education. Only in subject-specific knowledge. We are trained and evaluated to do research, not to teach. Furthermore, despite English being a fundamental and essential tool in our area, we do not receive any training in this regard, we have to look for it ourselves. Other groups that I think need it less, do receive English courses. In our case, it is taken for granted that we know English]. Comment (10) from a chemistry lecturer is extremely interesting for three main reasons: first, because it foregrounds the importance of having pedagogical competence to teach content subjects -a view which is very often not shared by all HE professionals; second, because it views English as a fundamental working tool in the discipline of chemistry; and third, because it points to the (false) underlying belief that all lecturers in the sciences are naturally competent in English.
By and large, what these multifaceted roles of English (i.e., EFL, ESP, EAP) suggest is that TPD for EMI needs to take into consideration the particular needs, skills and competencies of lecturers depending on their specific discipline but also their own beliefs regarding the role(s) of English in those fields (Dafouz and Smit 2017;Sawir 2011, 51).
The second theme that emerged from the survey (18 instances, 33% of responses) is related to the request for foreign languages (other than English) in lecturers' teaching and research practices. The languages explicitly mentioned by respondents were, in order of frequency, French, German, Italian, Arabic and Chinese. What these comments generally suggest is that, in addition to English, some lecturers believe that other languages are also needed in the TPD courses offered in order to adapt to the new global and multilingual realities of HEIs (Kuteeva et al. 2020). Such a multilingual approach was indeed at the core of the European Union, when it officially devised a 2+1 linguistic landscape where all European citizens should master their L1 + two other languages. Nonetheless, at this point, the range of programmes in languages other than English is extremely limited across European Universities, and, in this respect the UCM is no exception. At the University of the Basque Country, for instance, there is consistently a higher demand for English than for either French or German, with only a small number of students and 'only one subject is taught [in German]' (Lasagabaster 2015, 92). While some initiatives to offer Double International Degrees in languages other than English (e.g., German, French or Italian) are in place, these double degrees do not, however, really depend on the foreign language competence of the home lecturers involved, but rather on that of the outbound students as they receive instruction in the host country's national language (L1) once there. In other words, one could argue that while a multilingual stance may be spreading slowly across the student population of the European continent, it is still not extensive at the lecturer level. Despite the current and general absence of TPD programmes in other foreign languages, what is quite noticeable is the presence of some multilingual practices in the classroom, namely, reading published material in different languages or encouraging the use of students' multilingual repertoires (Kuteeva et al. 2020;Palfreyman and van der Walt 2017). Given these practices, it may be the case that in a not too distant future a new generation of lecturers may approach their teaching and learning with a greater appreciation of multilingual repertoires and practices in accordance with the diverse student profiles that populate our 21 st century classrooms (Dafouz et al. 2016;Doiz et al. 2019; Rubio-Cuenca and Moore 2018).
In addition, the integration of languages other than English in the internationalization strategy of universities needs to be considered more systematically. In this regard, identifying the specific roles played by other languages in certain knowledge areas, disciplines or professional practices (e.g., German in Philosophy, French in Diplomacy and Law, or Chinese in Trade and Commerce) could be a first step towards going beyond an English-only approach. Adopting such an ecolinguistic and multilingual paradigm examines 'the relationship of languages to each other and the society in which these languages exist' (Creese and Martin 2003, 161). This socio-political and critical stance, as argued in section 2, needs to be displayed clearly in the Faculty policies and practices and in the resulting TPD programmes designed.
The third theme that emerged from the lecturer comments (9 comments, 16.2%) concerned the role of Spanish. Observations under this heading revolve around the importance of using Spanish in the IoHE: (14) ¿Por qué no se habla de internacionalización en español? somos la segunda lengua en el mundo ¿por qué no se potencia nuestra lengua en los ámbitos científicos y qué pasa con las humanidades? (362). [Why don't people speak about internationalization in Spanish? We are the second language in the world. Why is our language not promoted in scientific fields and what about the humanities?] Other comments highlighted the need to defend the use of Spanish as a language of scientific research and of education in the Spanish university system, as the quote below summarises: (15) Me encantaría que todos manejásemos mejor el castellano y reivindiquemos su uso como lenguaje científico internacional. Si no lo reivindicamos nosotros quienes lo van a hacer ¿los ingleses? (393). [I would love for all of us to have a better command of Spanish and to vindicate its use as an international scientific language. If we don't call for this, who will? The English?].
What testimonies 14 and 15 clearly show is the need for EMI programmes in internationalization to take into account the roles of global languages in education while at the same time preserving the local and national language(s) in the locality. This 'glocal' view needs to be recognised by all the stakeholders involved, and especially those working in EMI and international settings (see Dafouz and Smit 2020;Soler and Gallego-Balsá 2019). In the case of the UCM, English and Spanish coexist as languages of instruction in line with the national Strategy for the Internationalization of Spanish Universities (2015-2020), whereby bilingual education (English-Spanish) is favoured over English-only education (see MECD 2014, 23). Fear of L1 academic attrition, as revealed in examples 14 and 15 above, has been reported in many university settings, especially in countries with minoritized languages where the predominance of English in education is even more widespread than in Spain (see for example, Airey at al. 2015 with respect to the Nordic countries).
This concern over the Englishization of HE (see Lanvers and Hultgren 2018) is indeed warranted and therefore needs to be addressed explicitly in TPD courses. Moreover, such resistance also ought to be overtly discussed in terms of the other target areas of CI, namely, 'Leadership and Staff' and 'Curriculum, Cocurriculum and Learning Outcomes' (see model for CI in section 2). If this is not done, the plausible tensions amongst participants will widen the gap between the supporters and opponents of internationalization and may put the whole mission at risk -a tension that is visible in the quote below: (16) No hay nada que distinga la docencia en ingles (sic) de la docencia en español, salvo el conocimiento de la lengua. Los docentes que necesiten esta formación es mejor que impartan en español. La cuestion (sic) es si la universidad española tiene alguna responsabilidad en preservar el idioma español, y parece que cada vez la respuesta es mas (sic) unanimemente que no. Sorprendente. (398).
[There is nothing that distinguishes teaching in English from teaching in Spanish, except knowledge of the language. Teachers who need this training are better off teaching in Spanish. The question is whether Spanish universities have any responsibility to preserve the Spanish language, and it seems that each time the answer is more unanimously 'no'. Surprising].
This comment puts forward the assumption that the only difference between EMI and Spanish-medium instruction is the language used. From this perspective, it is simply a matter of changing the code. Nonetheless, this take ignores several essential differences. On the one hand, it does not take into account the diverse (inter) cultural differences that exist in the current student population in our classrooms. On the other, it overlooks the pedagogical and/or educational and curricular adaptations that need to take place when using students' L2 as the language of instruction. Similarly, it does not consider the adjustments and even limitations that teachers themselves need to confront when teaching in a language that is not their L1. Such monolingual and monocultural views are undoubtedly connected to an institution's experience of international settings as well as to lecturers' personal beliefs and acquaintance of internationalization (see for example, Dafouz et al. 2016). Therefore, as this study has illustrated, teachers' views need to be carefully examined when implementing changes as systemic as EMI is.

Lecturer Comments and their Impact on the Development of TPD Courses for Internationalization
As mentioned at the onset of this paper, the comments and requests that our lecturers made in the online survey were used to inform the development of the TPD courses offered in 2017-19. Focusing on Area III (Internationalization of teaching/learning and Research), several measures were implemented. With regard to English language certification, the UCM set up an agreement with the university's Language Centre ('Idiomas Complutense') so that lecturers could register for the CertAcles exams and sit them at the university itself. These exams are accredited by the Association of Language Centres in Higher Education (ACLES) and, in addition to being more affordable than many other certifications, CertAcles exams are recognized by Regional Education Departments as well as the Spanish Conference of University Rectors (CRUE). Although some lecturers have asked to not have to pay the examination fees themselves, at the time of writing, this has not been yet approved by the UCM. However, the measure has been discussed repeatedly at management level, as a prospective means to support faculty in the process of the internationalization of teaching and research.
Within English language provision, two specific courses have been offered on a yearly basis since 2017 to support lecturers' academic and professional skills in English (EAP). The first course known as 'English for academic writing and publishing' is intended to assist lecturers, both in the EMI strands and beyond, in the publication of their research in internationally ranked journals and books. With a C1 level required from participants, there has been a high demand for this course since its inception from lecturers from all disciplines at the UCM. More particularly, the course has also been attended by PhD candidates in the process of writing their thesis and/or publishing research articles. The second course, 'Presenting conference papers in English' aims to prepare staff in the delivery of papers at national and international conferences where English is the language of communication. Special attention is placed on the pronunciation of technical terms and of high frequency items in academic English (see also Doiz et al. 2019, 166), and also on the interpersonal skills needed to discuss, negotiate and socialise in conference scenarios. In addition, since 2016 a course entitled 'Communication strategies for teaching and learning in the international classroom' (or INTER-COM), has also been run for teaching staff to help them develop content knowledge pedagogy and appropriate communicative skills for the classroom. This course aims to raise language awareness amongst lecturers, and reflect upon the use of several classroom discourse strategies such as different types of questions, the use of paraphrasing or repetition in L2 settings or the pace to be used in these settings (see Jensen and Thøgersen 2011, for similar strategies in the Swedish setting). The INTER-COM course also takes into account possible differences in language use across disciplines and lecturer's own perceptions of these differences.
With regard to the presence of other foreign languages for internationalization, the TPD programme designed a course in Spanish on 'Developing intercultural competence in international settings' targeted at all UCM lecturers, whether engaged in EMI or not. Its purpose is to equip lecturers with the skills to interact with learners from different educational, cultural and social settings. In the case of UCM, where the numbers of Chinese students were as high as 3,000 in the academic years 2014-2019, this course usually attracts lecturers from the school of Trade and Commerce and Economics. The course deals mainly with ways to familiarize faculty with the educational culture of Chinese students and also to enhance their classroom participation. In addition, a course on the 'Internationalization of the Curriculum' was offered both to management and staff in January 2019. The idea behind this course was to reflect on intercultural student learning outcomes and how these outcomes need to be purposefully integrated into the internationalized curricula (Leask 2015) and in assessment (see more in Sánchez-García and Dafouz 2020, 29). The general idea behind this course is to engage university management (deans and vice-deans, heads of department, etc.) in the process of CI so that a true international and multilingual ethos permeates the whole UCM, bottom-up and top-down.
Finally, regarding the presence and use of Spanish in education, an ongoing collaboration with the Complutense Centre for the Teaching of Spanish, (Centro Complutense para la Enseñanza del Español or CCEE) was initiated in 2017. The CCEE is the institution responsible for offering Spanish language provision as well as for providing Spanish language accreditation exams (both SIELE 6 and UCM certificates) to all international students at the UCM. In this respect, CCEE set up specific courses for international students with levels below a B2 in Spanish. This measure has allowed international students to obtain official certification that will enable them to follow degrees in Spanish more easily and thus make the most of their international experience. At the same time, this policy tries to encourage international students' enrolment not only in EMI degrees but also in non-EMI strands (i.e., Spanish). This would increase the use of Spanish amongst our international students, favouring the use of Spanish as a lingua franca in education (Kelly 2017). While these measures are indeed to be welcome, as they truly epitomise internationalization, they demand careful planning too and, above all, strong collaboration and coordination between all the stakeholders and organizational units involved. In other words, this means that different academic and administrative units or structures within the university, which generally did not work together now need to cooperate more closely (see Cotzart at al. 2015;Haines 2017).

Repositioning EMI from an Internationalization Perspective: Opportunities and Challenges
The information yielded from the online intra-university survey distributed in 2016 at UCM has helped to situate EMI lecturer professional development in a broader international perspective. A number of opportunities and challenges have stemmed from this repositioning.
First, and focussing on the opportunities, the TPD courses developed for internationalization have engaged a much wider set of stakeholders, organizational units and university hierarchies than would have been expected if only an English-language perspective had been adopted. An example of this is the aforementioned course 'Developing Intercultural Competence' where both administrative staff from the International Relations Offices and academic staff from Sociology, Education, English studies and Chinese studies collaborated in an interdisciplinary manner to include topics and skills that would be useful to UCM professionals. In the same vein, academic staff from two different degrees, Economics and English studies, have cooperated in the design of materials to be used in the Business Studies degree in English. Likewise, different university hierarchies at the macro-, meso-and micro-level of policy, such as deans, vicedeans, heads of department and lecturers, have participated actively in a number of TPD courses (e.g., 'Internationalization of the Curriculum'), reflecting the multi-level experience that internationalization truly is (Maassen and Musselin 2009, 10). This systemic view contrasts with other ad hoc EMI programmes linked solely to general English language courses and, consequently, often based specifically in language centres or language units, where their overall impact and visibility is likely to be lower and the number of stakeholders involved is fewer too (see for example, Lauridsen 2017; Dafouz et al. 2020).
Second, by adopting a more holistic and multilingual view of teaching and learning in international settings, EMI TPD have aligned beyond English monolingual practices and included broader bi/multilingual and intercultural practices. It is precisely because of this multilingual and intercultural view, as suggested elsewhere (Dafouz andSmit 2016, 2020), that the label Englishmedium education in multilingual university settings (or EMEMUS) can describe more accurately the complex and multilingual nature of the EMI phenomenon.
Third, by examining content lecturers' needs for TPD, and internationalization more generally, from different knowledge areas and disciplines, we are able to tap into their beliefs about language and education and identify lecturers' perceived needs with regard to (English) language training. In other words, EMI TPD programmes that are designed from a bottom-up perspective, where lecturers have been consulted, can become truly transformative in the long term. While these transformative experiences can obviously not be drawn from the survey data examined here, research has documented that gradual changes can take place in classroom teaching and learning when stakeholders' views are taken into consideration in the design of TPD programmes (e.g., Haines 2017).
Fourth, by recognizing and empowering the participation of specialized teacher trainers or educational developers who are experts in the development of international skills and competencies , EMI TPD courses are deemed valuable and necessary for 21 st century educators. Moreover, by counting on in-house educational developers, rather than outsourced professionals, real organizational change within the HEI can actually take place and be sustainable over time (Bradford and Brown 2018). In-house EMI professionals 'give due recognition to local vernacular modes of learning and teaching' (Dafouz 2018, 550) and are aware of the institutional policies and practices in place.
This repositioning of EMI, nonetheless, also poses significant challenges to HEIs. As stated above, a systemic change like this requires the integration of different university organizational units and consequently careful coordination across university structures. While such coordination is indeed possible, partnerships between different agencies require strong leadership and longterm commitment. In the case of UCM, and possibly of the Spanish education system as a whole, university governance (at the macro-and meso-level) is elected on a four-yearly basis and therefore the maintenance of any Strategic Action Plan is often at risk when there is a change in management (Pérez-Encinas et al. 2017).
Moreover, internal communication in any large institution (such as the UCM) needs to be efficient. Explaining and implementing substantial changes as the ones brought by internationalization has been a challenging process. This has been especially noticeable in those schools where there has been a certain degree of resistance to introduce English as a language of instruction for fear of Spanish losing ground as medium of instruction (see section 5.2). This difficulty has also been found across knowledge areas where the internationalization of education is deemed less relevant, or where it is already perceived as an accomplished goal (as in the example of the chemistry lecturer).
All in all, while the repositioning of a particular strategy such as EMI within a broader Comprehensive Teacher Training Plan can make EMI more robust and sustainable, this in itself is not enough. As stated throughout this article, a comprehensive view of internationalization needs to be adopted across the whole of campus life, together with the careful design and implementation of EMI courses so that stakeholders can develop the skills, the competencies and the knowledge needed to put these strategies into practice effectively.

Closing Remarks
This article set out to argue for a repositioning of EMI TPD programmes in a broader internationalization frame. To do so, the paper used a case study, the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, and the data derived from the online intrauniversity survey addressed to academic staff in 2016.
The survey data showed that the design and implementation of TPD programmes was generally viewed as positive amongst the lecturers surveyed. In the case of the area of Internationalization of teaching/learning and research, lecturers ranked this area first in their list of perceived needs. While the reasons for this are not totally clear, the time at which the survey was conducted aligns with implementation of the university's top-down 'Plan for Curricular Internationalization'.
Regarding lecturer views, comments overall revealed that teachers asked for English language provision, particularly from an ESP/EAP perspective so that specific vocabulary and disciplinary differences regarding communicative practices be addressed in the TPD courses offered. Furthermore, some lecturers pointed to the inclusion of languages other than English (i.e. French, German, Italian) in the TPD courses, both to align with the role of these languages in the construction of knowledge in specific disciplines as well as to adapt to the new HE student population (e.g., increased numbers of Chinese or Arabic speaking students). Finally, lecturers also requested that Spanish be used as a language for internationalization and research in order to avoid possible domain loss and attrition in the L1.
By and large, what these views deem clear is that TPD for EMI needs to be viewed beyond English-only training and, that adopting a more international, multilingual and multicultural vision of teaching and learning is paramount in 21 st century education (Dafouz and Smit 2020;Leask 2015;Hudzik 2011). Thus, by displaying a sociolinguistic and ecolinguistic understanding of internationalization and the roles of language in HE (Soler and Gallego-Balsá 2019), the university will ensure that the TPD experience is a truly transformative one in the long run.
In sum, while there is no one-size fits all approach, this article contends that repositioning EMI TPD in a broader international agenda, can enable universities to view it in a much more relevant, transformative and sustainable light. Although the findings of this study are limited to one institution, it is believed that the experiences described here can encourage other HEIs to infuse a true international and multilingual ethos in their EMI programmes.