Institutional Policies on EMI Implementation

The implementation of English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) in educational institutions is deeply shaped by institutional policies, which often vary across contexts. Effective EMI strategies adopted by educators must therefore align with their institution’s policy orientations to create a supportive learning environment for both teachers and students (Rifiyanti & Dewi, 2023). However, research shows that institutional efforts to prioritize EMI can sometimes generate tensions when individual or community preferences for local language instruction are overlooked. This highlights the importance of acknowledging the ecology-of-language paradigm, which recognizes the coexistence and value of multiple languages in educational settings (Wang et al., 2025).

In response to these challenges, universities are increasingly adopting policies that incentivize faculty development in English proficiency, often using positive reinforcement to motivate lecturers to improve their language and pedagogical skills (“English as Medium of Instruction (EMI): What training is needed by the faculty members?”, 2023). Despite such efforts, gaps may still emerge between top-down policy directives and classroom-level implementation, where teachers must navigate real-time linguistic and pedagogical demands (Şahan, 2021).

Additionally, concerns related to language proficiency and the need for targeted teacher training remain central to the effective enactment of EMI. Diezmas and Barrera (2021) emphasize that without structured professional development, lecturers may struggle to deliver content effectively in English, potentially impacting student learning outcomes.

Collectively, these insights highlight that successful EMI implementation requires not only clearly articulated institutional policies but also deep attention to their practical implications for teaching practices and the ongoing professional development needs of faculty.

Introduction: The Policy–Practice Nexus

Institutional policies play a pivotal role in determining how English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) is implemented, managed, and evaluated. While national governments set the overall language education agenda, universities are the key actors translating these macro-level policies into actionable practices. An institutional EMI policy outlines not only the scope and purpose of English-medium teaching but also the expected learning outcomes, teacher qualifications, student support mechanisms, and evaluation frameworks.

Policy Dimensions in EMI Implementation

Institutional EMI policies are typically multidimensional, addressing linguistic, pedagogical, and administrative aspects. Three dimensions are commonly identified:

• Linguistic Policy: Defines the role of English in instruction, assessment, and communication. It often specifies whether English-only or bilingual instruction is permitted and outlines proficiency requirements for both teachers and students.
• Pedagogical Policy: Provides guidelines for curriculum design, content delivery, and assessment practices. This includes faculty training, quality assurance mechanisms, and integration of academic English support.
• Administrative Policy: Establishes governance structures, resource allocation, and collaboration mechanisms among departments to sustain EMI programs.

“A well-crafted EMI policy serves as a bridge between language ideology and classroom reality.”

Institutional Strategies Across Asia

In Asian higher education, institutional responses to EMI vary widely depending on national priorities and institutional autonomy. For instance:

• Japan: Many universities have implemented bilingual curricula, combining English-taught courses with Japanese-medium support to attract international students.
• Malaysia: Institutions such as Universiti Malaya adopt EMI selectively, focusing on postgraduate and professional programs to enhance global competitiveness.
• Vietnam: Universities like HUFLIT and Vietnam National University have developed internal EMI task forces to train faculty, set proficiency benchmarks, and monitor implementation outcomes.

These examples illustrate how institutions tailor EMI policies to local linguistic ecologies while maintaining global aspirations.

Faculty Development and Quality Assurance

Teacher preparation is central to EMI success. Institutions must ensure that lecturers possess both content expertise and sufficient English proficiency to deliver lessons effectively. Faculty development policies often include:

• Mandatory English proficiency assessments (e.g., CEFR B2–C1 level).
• Workshops on academic discourse, classroom interaction, and intercultural communication.
• Peer observation and mentoring schemes for continuous improvement.

Student Support and Equity Considerations

Institutions must design EMI policies that promote inclusion rather than exclusion. Students from diverse linguistic backgrounds may face challenges in comprehension, participation, and assessment. Therefore, universities are encouraged to:

• Provide academic writing centers and English language clinics.
• Offer pre-sessional language programs for new students.
• Develop formative assessments to track linguistic progress.

EMI success depends not only on institutional ambition but also on sustained student support and inclusive pedagogy.

Monitoring and Evaluation Frameworks

Transparent evaluation is crucial for maintaining EMI quality. Leading Asian universities employ data-driven approaches to monitor student outcomes, teaching quality, and policy effectiveness. Common tools include:

• Annual institutional reviews integrating student feedback.
• Cross-faculty EMI audits to ensure consistency.
• Performance indicators aligned with global accreditation standards such as AACSB or QS Stars.

By embedding EMI evaluation into institutional quality assurance systems, universities ensure accountability and continuous enhancement.