In English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) environments, the choice, adaptation, and contextualization of teaching materials play a decisive role in shaping both learning outcomes and learner engagement. Materials that have been directly imported from English-speaking academic or professional settings may not automatically align with the linguistic repertoires, cultural expectations, and academic practices of students in Asian or multilingual higher-education contexts. Therefore, EMI instructors and curriculum designers must learn to evaluate materials critically and localize them in ways that remain academically rigorous yet accessible and culturally meaningful.
Understanding the Purpose of Localization
Localization in EMI does not mean simplifying content to the point of removing academic challenge. Rather, it involves adjusting or supplementing materials to enhance students’ comprehension while maintaining intellectual depth. Localization respects the disciplinary content while aligning examples, explanation patterns, discourse styles, and assessment formats with learners’ background knowledge, language proficiency, and cultural frame of reference.
Criteria for Evaluating EMI Materials
When assessing whether a material is suitable for use in an EMI context, instructors can consider several criteria:
- Language Accessibility: Does the text require academic literacy beyond learners’ current proficiency?
- Content Relevance: Are the examples and case studies culturally and contextually meaningful?
- Instructional Support: Are there visuals, glosses, summaries, or guiding questions?
- Cognitive Load: Does the material overwhelm learners with unfamiliar terminology or abstract theory?
- Disciplinary Accuracy: Does localization preserve the integrity of the subject?
Evaluating materials through these dimensions helps instructors identify where modifications are necessary and where original content should remain untouched.
Techniques for Localizing EMI Materials
Localization may be achieved through various techniques that refine language, build context, and scaffold comprehension. Common approaches include:
- Rewriting complex sentences while retaining key disciplinary terms.
- Replacing unfamiliar examples with regionally relevant cases.
- Adding bilingual glossaries for discipline-specific terminology.
- Inserting guiding questions before and after reading sections.
- Providing visual concept maps to clarify relationships among ideas.
Balancing Global and Local Perspectives
In EMI courses, especially in Southeast Asian or multilingual settings, students benefit from exposure to global academic discourse. However, global perspectives should be actively connected to local realities. The goal is not to replace international examples with local ones exclusively, but to position them in dialogue. For example, a global model of educational policy may be paired with a Vietnamese institutional case to encourage comparison and critical reflection.
This dual framing helps students see themselves as participants in global academic and professional conversations, while recognizing the value of local perspectives, experiences, and knowledge contributions.
Ensuring Cultural and Linguistic Inclusivity
Localization should not assume cultural sameness among students. EMI classrooms may include learners from varied linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Inclusive material design involves avoiding culturally-specific idioms without explanation, ensuring diverse representation in examples, and recognizing that students’ prior knowledge may vary widely.
Instructors may also integrate translanguaging practices strategically. For example, brief explanations in students’ home languages or Vietnamese-English keyword pairings can improve comprehension without undermining the primacy of English-medium instruction.
Reflection and Continuous Improvement
EMI material evaluation is not a one-time task but a continuous process shaped by classroom observation and student feedback. What works effectively in one semester or cohort may shift based on student demographics, evolving curriculum goals, or changes in institutional policy.