Questions about EMI often begin from an apparently straightforward premise-does EMI improve students' English? This article argues that the question itself is the source of the main analytic problem. Using EMI as an exemplar of a wider problem in applied linguistics, we show why binary claims about language gain travel poorly across contexts. Existing evidence is constrained by the limits of quasi-experimental comparison, the ideological load carried by self-report data, the instability of 'English proficiency' as a construct, and the hypercontextualized conditions through which EMI is enacted. The issue is therefore a mismatch between the question being asked and the phenomenon under investigation. EMI outcomes emerge through configurations of pedagogy, language support, institutional policy, disciplinary practice, learner histories, and unequal access to English. We argue for a shift from asking whether EMI works to examining what forms of language development become possible, for whom, through which mechanisms, and under which conditions. The article concludes by outlining implications for EMI research design and for policy claims that treat incidental English development as an automatic benefit of EMI.
Abstract This qualitative study focuses on early‐career scholars working in francophone institutions in Canada as they negotiate plurilingual research publication practices. Data from four early‐career scholars, collected across two interview rounds over a two‐year period, show how language choice in publishing is a complex process which cannot be understood simply through the lens of linguistic proficiency. Instead, the participants' trajectories reflect strategic and agentive decisions shaped by audience, institutional context, and evolving professional identities. While English was initially viewed as a pathway to scholarly legitimacy, participants increasingly mobilized French, thereby expanding their engagement across communities. The findings also highlight the role of access to resources and geographic positioning in enabling plurilingual publishing practices, alongside a shift toward greater agency in publication decision‐making over time. By documenting how early‐career scholars move from aligning with dominant publishing norms to actively shaping their own dissemination practices, this study contributes to research on English for Research Publication Purposes while foregrounding the importance of plurilingual approaches to scholarly communication. More broadly, the findings position plurilingual publishing as central to promoting more inclusive and context‐responsive knowledge production in the field of language education and applied linguistics. This Abstract is available in French in the .
Abstract Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming the teaching and learning of second language (L2) writing. Despite AI's affordances in assisting L2 writing, improvements in writing skills and learning outcomes that extend beyond producing polished texts largely depend on students' active AI engagement, typically involving AI‐generated content and AI tools. This study adopts a qualitative, classroom‐based inquiry to examine how 56 L2 postgraduate students engage with AI in an authentic academic writing class. Framing engagement as a multidimensional meta‐construct, we identify a contextualized pattern of engagement characterized by students' agential role in shaping human–AI interactions across behavioral, cognitive, emotional, and social dimensions. Specifically, behavioral engagement occurs at compositional and operational levels, whereas cognitive engagement involves cognitive autonomy and metacognitive awareness. Students' emotional engagement involves appreciation and relief, as well as caution and emotional distance. Social engagement intersects with other dimensions, potentially shaping how students act, think, and feel in relation to AI through collaborative reflection. The findings inform a reconceptualization of engagement as a fluid, situated process, moving beyond a simple engagement–disengagement dichotomy toward a dynamic continuum shaped by the ongoing interplay across its multiple dimensions, encompassing both synergies and tensions. Implications for L2 writing and learning are also discussed.
Abstract Despite the documented merits of Informal Digital Learning of English (IDLE), a critical gap persists in understanding how learner‐external factors drive students' proactive learning behavior, particularly within under‐explored Global South contexts. This explanatory mixed‐methods study examines how multilayered institutional supports, including pedagogical quality, university policy, institutional resources, and the campus language environment, predict Thai university learners' IDLE practices. Regression and relative importance analyses ( N = 749) showed that the final model explained 58% of the variance in IDLE. The Lindeman–Merenda–Gold analysis attributed broadly comparable shares of the explained variance to institutional resources (26.0%), pedagogical quality (25.2%), the language environment (24.4%), and university policy (24.4%). Semi‐structured interviews ( N = 12) complemented the quantitative findings and further illuminating the role of learner agency and digital awareness in translating institutional supports into autonomous digital learning practices. Ultimately, the findings demonstrate that IDLE is not merely an isolated individual endeavor but is deeply intertwined with formal institutional ecosystems that foster autonomous digital learning beyond the classroom. This study finally offers potential attempts for integrating formal instruction with IDLE practices in Thailand higher education.
