Workplace English Language Needs for Medical Students in China Learning and Using English as Non-Native Speakers
Abstract This mixed-methods study presents a needs analysis to investigate the workplace English language needs of medical students in China who are learning and using English as non-native speakers, the circumstances in which the various language skills are required, and stakeholders’ perceived workplace preparedness in the light of language-related instructional provision during medical training. A leading university in China was chosen as the study case. Altogether, 294 online questionnaires were collected from undergraduate medical students, graduate medical students and recent graduates working as physicians, and 33 semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with undergraduate medical students, graduate medical students, recent graduates working as physicians, medical teachers, English for Medical Purposes (EMP) teachers, program leaders and English-speaking patients. Results showed that in addition to physicians experiencing pressure to publish scientific articles internationally, participants attached greater importance to physicians’ oral English communication ability, especially in undertaking clinical consultations in English, working with medical interpreters or acting as ad hoc interpreters. The participants also reported a lack of relevant EMP courses or trainings available at this university. Given these communicative events that physicians face in China, EMP courses need to include training in these specific areas.
Authors
- Talia Isaacs (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4302-3379)
- Haiying Liang (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8601-3763)
- Michael Reiß (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1207-4229)
Institutions
- University College London (GB)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics
- Published
- 2025-02-01
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2025-0108
- Citations
- 1
- Primary Topic
- Interpreting and Communication in Healthcare
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 2.82