Across Asia, the rapid adoption of English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) has been driven by government policies emphasizing internationalization, competitiveness, and employability. However, research consistently reveals a gap between policy intentions and classroom realities. This policy–practice gap manifests when institutional mandates for EMI fail to align with teachers’ capacities, students’ readiness, and the broader linguistic ecology of the education system.
1. The Policy Landscape of EMI
National policies promoting English Medium Instruction (EMI) often emerge from significant economic and geopolitical motivations. In countries such as Japan and China, policymakers have adopted EMI to enhance the global competitiveness of domestic graduates, reflecting a state-driven agenda for educational reform (Macaro et al., 2021; Parajuli, 2022). In contrast, many European contexts show fewer centralized EMI policies, where decisions tend to be shaped more by institutional autonomy than national strategy (Macaro et al., 2021).
The internationalization of higher education further influences EMI adoption, as universities seek to attract international students and align graduate skills with global labor market demands (Şahan, 2020). Regional initiatives such as the Erasmus Programme demonstrate how cross-border frameworks encourage policy alignment and standardized educational experiences (Vural & Dinçer, 2022). Consequently, EMI often emerges as a strategic response to both domestic development goals and international pressures (Şahan, 2021; Vural & Dinçer, 2022).
Insight: Policy momentum in EMI is often top-down, while pedagogical practice evolves bottom-up, creating tension between vision and viability.
2. Classroom-Level Realities
Classroom realities, however, reveal substantial variation. In China, EMI is widely implemented, but monolingual ideologies frequently persist, leading instructors to teach primarily in English and rely on students’ first language only for clarification. This underscores the need for professional development to shift entrenched beliefs about language use in instruction (Jia et al., 2023). Similarly, in Thailand and Vietnam, EMI adoption is often top-down, resulting in policy–practice mismatches where teachers understand language policies but continue to prioritize English-only instruction even when it hinders student learning (Şahan et al., 2022; Şahan, 2021).
Japan and China further illustrate challenges surrounding language proficiency and the need for academic support structures, as students often struggle with the linguistic demands of EMI (Galloway et al., 2024). These cases highlight the interdependence of systemic policy, educator beliefs, and student experiences in shaping EMI success across Asia.
3. Institutional Constraints and Resource Gaps
Despite strong policy intentions, universities frequently encounter difficulties in the operationalization of EMI. In South Korea, rapid EMI expansion driven by global ranking ambitions has led to misalignment between policy goals and classroom realities, diminishing student engagement (Williams, 2023). In Japan, EMI is often implemented without adequate pedagogical guidance or institutional support, limiting instructional quality (Aizawa & Rose, 2018). Meanwhile, in Azerbaijan, rapid EMI expansion risks undermining local language and cultural relevance (Mammadova, 2023). Vietnam faces additional constraints, including limited teacher proficiency and student preparedness (Anh, 2022). Common constraints include:
- Limited professional development: Few structured programs exist for training lecturers in EMI pedagogy.
- Inadequate materials: Teaching resources are often translated rather than locally developed, resulting in cultural mismatch.
- Uneven student proficiency: Students’ English competence varies widely, creating equity concerns in EMI classrooms.
- Institutional pressures: Performance indicators and accreditation requirements prioritize policy compliance over pedagogical quality.
As a result, EMI implementation often becomes symbolic—used to signal modernization rather than to achieve sustainable bilingual education outcomes.
4. Research-Based Interpretations of the Gap
Scholars categorize the policy–practice gap in EMI into three interrelated domains:
- Ideological gap: Policies assume that English automatically enhances quality and prestige, overlooking linguistic diversity and contextual appropriateness.
- Implementation gap: There is a lack of clear guidelines for translating national policy into institutional and classroom-level strategies.
- Capacity gap: Teachers and students often lack the training and linguistic competence needed for successful EMI delivery.
These dimensions interact dynamically, reinforcing the structural and pedagogical barriers that hinder policy realization. In many ASEAN universities, EMI remains aspirational rather than fully operational. Ideologically, EMI can perpetuate narratives of English superiority, marginalizing local languages and reinforcing social inequality (Phyak, 2023; Ahmad & Gui-jun, 2022; Tri, 2021). Implementation challenges arise when institutions adopt EMI without clear pedagogical frameworks or training (Pusey, 2020; Williams, 2023). Capacity gaps further manifest in shortages of qualified instructors and insufficient professional development opportunities (Phyak, 2023; Williams, 2023).
5. Bridging the Divide: Emerging Solutions
To bridge these gaps, researchers emphasize the need for faculty development programs that equip educators with relevant pedagogical and language skills (Uehara & Kojima, 2021). Inclusive policy-making processes that incorporate stakeholder feedback can also support better policy–practice alignment. Finally, leveraging technology-enhanced language learning, including generative AI tools, can help support both instruction and academic integrity when used responsibly (Bannister et al., 2023).
Collectively, these strategies highlight the importance of addressing ideological, structural, and resource-related challenges to ensure that EMI promotes equitable and effective learning environments within higher education.
6. Future Research Directions
Future EMI research calls for interdisciplinary approaches that integrate sociolinguistics, educational policy, and teacher cognition. Scholars advocate longitudinal studies tracking how policies evolve over time and how lecturers’ identities and practices shift in response. Furthermore, comparative research within ASEAN can illuminate how national cultures, governance systems, and institutional autonomy shape EMI trajectories differently.
Bridging the policy–practice divide will require not only evidence-based policymaking but also participatory dialogue between decision-makers and educators who inhabit the everyday realities of EMI classrooms.