Policy adoption and implementation strategies

Chinese policymakers have regarded EMI as a strategic approach to enhancing national competitiveness, fostering international engagement, raising educational quality, and producing multi-talented citizens. At the same time, there is a society-wide recognition of English proficiency as being linked to power, prestige and social mobility. Compared with other Asian and European nations, China was relatively slow in adopting EMI in HE. However, as noted by Hu (Reference Hu2023), EMI gained momentum at the institutional level following its endorsement by the Chinese Ministry of Education (MOE) in 2001 and its implementation in leading Chinese universities. According to Hu and Lei (Reference Hu and Lei2014), policymakers in China have recognized EMI as a crucial strategy for elevating educational standards. English is perceived as ‘an integral component of higher education’ to fulfil China's objectives for ‘development and international interaction’ (MOE 2007, cited in Hu and Lei Reference Hu and Lei2014, 557). Thus, the adoption of EMI in China has been driven by the country's ideologies about national development and individual beliefs in the power, prestige, and advantages associated with English such as upward mobility, cultural enrichment, and economic opportunities in domestic and global markets (Hu et al. Reference Hu, Li and Lei2014; Zhang Reference Zhang2018). Galloway et al. (Reference Galloway, Numajiri and Rees2020) suggest that the implementation of EMI serves a dual purpose: it provides students with the opportunity to enhance their English proficiency while simultaneously advancing academic performance in their disciplinary studies.

Chinese universities, functioning as meso-level actors, have adopted a range of strategies to facilitate the implementation of EMI. These strategies include requiring entrance English examinations as a prerequisite for students’ enrolment in EMI programs, providing ‘extra sheltered intensive instruction in English in order to raise their English proficiency to a level adequate for EMI’ (Hu and Lei Reference Hu and Lei2014, 563), and hiring faculty members who have gained experience with EMI through overseas study or employment (Hu et al. Reference Hu, Li and Lei2014). Additionally, universities provide various incentives to encourage faculty participation in EMI programs. These incentives encompass favourable workload calculations, increased opportunities for professional development in Anglophone universities, tangible rewards and financial support specifically designated for EMI faculty, and symbolic recognition of their contributions to the design and delivery of EMI courses (Hu et al. Reference Hu, Li and Lei2014).

Language practices and challenges

Despite the substantial efforts made to implement EMI, a gap persists between the overarching policy objectives and the actual language practices observed in EMI classrooms. One contributing factor is students’ limited English proficiency, which leaves them unprepared for the discipline-specific academic English required in EMI programs (Han and Dong Reference Han and Dong2024). Consequently, serious concerns remain regarding the effectiveness of subject content learning through EMI (Galloway and Ruegg Reference Galloway and Ruegg2020; Hu et al. Reference Hu, Li and Lei2014). The English-only monolingual policy in Chinese classrooms has been challenged at the micro level through translanguaging-based language practices. Fang et al. (Reference Fang, Jiang and Yang2023) highlighted the effectiveness of translanguaging in fostering comprehension, promoting classroom cohesion and enhancing learning outcomes for students with limited English proficiency. Similarly, Hu and Lei (Reference Hu and Lei2014) noted the prevalent use of the first language as a means of communication in EMI classrooms, describing it as a form of simplified EMI. Fang and Liu (Reference Fang and Liu2020) argued for the necessity of approaching EMI from a multilingual perspective to better understand its (in)effectiveness and the challenges associated with its classroom implementation.

EMI as part of Japan's higher education policy framework

The Japanese Ministry of Education (MEXT) announced the ‘Top Global University Project’ (TGUP) in 2014, a major investment initiative aimed at developing globally oriented world-class universities, enhancing the role of foreign languages in Japanese HE, and cultivating global human resources (Rose and McKinley Reference Rose and McKinley2018). Notably, the concept of EMI, which was prominent in the policy documents of the previous ‘Global 30 Project’, is conspicuously absent from the explicit goals outlined in the TGUP policy directives. Instead of explicitly advocating for EMI, the Japanese government has placed a greater emphasis on the internationalization of HE at the TGUP universities, which actually encourages the adoption of EMI in an implicit way (Aizawa and Rose Reference Aizawa and Rose2019).

At the meso level, Japanese universities have interpreted the TGUP policy in alignment with the top-down directives from MEXT. Rose and McKinley's (Reference Rose and McKinley2018) analysis of English language policy planning in TGUP universities revealed that 17 out of 37 institutions explicitly addressed the role of English and offered programs and courses in English. These English-medium programs were designed to provide domestic students with opportunities to learn English alongside international students and to use English in conjunction with other languages in a bilingual or multilingual educational context (Rose and McKinley Reference Rose and McKinley2018). Language policy at TGUP universities mandated that the language of instruction for all programs be clearly categorized and labelled in their online syllabi as Japanese, English, Japanese/English, or English/Japanese, depending on the languages used. In addition, TGUP universities stipulated English proficiency goals, as highlighted in Aizawa and Rose's (Reference Aizawa and Rose2019) policy analysis. Their findings indicated that the university examined in their case study set the clear target of increasing the percentage of its students achieving an IELTS proficiency level of 6.5 from 38.5% in 2013 to 50% by 2023. Furthermore, faculty recruitment policies at TGUP universities emphasized the requirement for English proficiency among new EMI lecturers to ensure they could effectively use English to deliver both lectures and tutorials.

Implementation challenges at the micro level

While the TGUP implicitly promulgates EMI through its focus on the internationalization of Japanese HE, discrepancies exist in the adoption and implementation of the policy directives at various levels. Previous studies examining EMI policy implementation in Japanese universities documented that the intended effects of MEXT's macro-level policy initiatives and universities' meso-level policy goals did not fully materialize at the micro level of classroom language practice, revealing the multitude of challenges in translating the policy goals and plans into concrete actions and outcomes (Aizawa and Rose Reference Aizawa and Rose2020). At the micro level, several factors contribute to these implementation challenges in TGUP universities. Bradford (2016) identified a number of linguistic, cultural, and structural factors (such as administrative, managerial, and institutional issues) as primary causes of policy implementation failure at this level. Teachers’ and students’ insufficient English proficiency was noted as a significant barrier to effective EMI implementation. Aizawa and Rose (Reference Aizawa and Rose2020) explored the language-related challenges faced by native Japanese-speaking undergraduate students transitioning from school to EMI at university and found that students with prior exposure to English encountered fewer difficulties than those without such exposure. Additionally, the mixed use of Japanese and English as mediums of instruction reflects linguistic difficulties among micro-level users in the Japanese EMI context (Aizawa and Rose Reference Aizawa and Rose2020).

Policy and ideological divides at the marco and meso levels

Malaysia's LPP landscape is characterized by divisions among macro- and meso-level language ideologies, practices, and management concerning MOI (Ali and Hamid Reference Ali, Obaidul Hamid and Kheng Chua2018). The Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) in Malaysia has announced its ambition to become an internationally recognized HE destination by 2025, aiming to attract 250,000 international students (Rahman and Singh Reference Rahman and Mehar Singh2022a). By offering a common language for both domestic and international students, it is anticipated that English will aid Malaysia in achieving its goal of becoming one of Asia's leading educational hubs (Rahman and Singh Reference Rahman and Mehar Singh2022a). However, at the macro level, policymakers have not explicitly promulgated EMI in HE. Instead, English functions as a de facto MOI in Malaysian HE (Rahman and Singh Reference Rahman and Mehar Singh2022a). No formal written directive has been issued to prescribe the implementation of EMI in the Malaysian HE sector (Rahman et al. Reference Rahman, Islam, Karim, Mehar Singh and Hu2025). According to Ali (Reference Ali2013, 73), the absence of formally formulated and circulated macro-level directives leaves policy adoption and implementation ‘open to interpretation by academic staff at the university level’.

Macro- and meso-level actors are divided with respect to the adoption of EMI. One group supports EMI, whereas the other group questions the exclusive use of English in the teaching and learning of content knowledge (Rahman and Singh Reference Rahman and Mehar Singh2022a). EMI is currently implemented in many programs at both public and private universities in Malaysia, with the assumption that it will enhance students' exposure to English in HE, raise their competence in the language, and prepare them for opportunities in both local and global job markets (Rahman et al. Reference Rahman, Islam, Karim, Mehar Singh and Hu2025). These meso-level language ideologies are supported by institutional language management initiatives, such as establishing standard language proficiency requirements for university admission and offering English for Academic Purposes courses to EMI students (Rahman and Singh Reference Rahman and Mehar Singh2022a).

Micro-level challenges

At the micro level, resistance to EMI and nationalist sentiments have been observed, with the parallel use of English and Malay as MOIs in classrooms. The Malaysian HE context exhibits mixed ideologies and practices concerning MOI. According to Gill (Reference Gill2006), a minority of academics driven by nationalism vehemently oppose the use of English as the MOI and advocate for Malay instead. However, recent studies (Ali and Hamid Reference Ali, Obaidul Hamid and Kheng Chua2018; Rahman and Singh Reference Rahman and Mehar Singh2022a) have reported positive attitudes among teachers and students toward the implementation of EMI in HE, emphasizing its necessity given the global importance of English (Gill Reference Gill2006; Rahman and Singh Reference Rahman and Mehar Singh2022a). Despite such positive attitudes, there is increasing resistance to implementing meso-level EMI policies. Rahman and Singh (Reference Rahman2021) reviewed studies conducted over a decade and found that conflicting MOI policies, instructional deficiencies, inadequate teaching and learning materials, limited opportunities for teachers' professional development, and nationalist sentiments left little space for the broader function of English and EMI. Similarly, Ali and Hamid (Reference Ali, Obaidul Hamid and Kheng Chua2018) noted the coexistence and fluid use of English and Malay in classroom interactions and campus communication. STEM teachers entrusted with EMI were often compelled to adopt blended MOIs because they had received their own education through Malay and had had insufficient opportunities to develop their competence in English as an academic language (Ali Reference Ali2013). Rahman et al. (Reference Rahman, Islam, Karim, Mehar Singh and Hu2025) characterized such micro-level language practices as translanguaging, viewing them as a practical response to the meso-level English-only language policy at the English-medium university that they studied.

EMI adoption driven by neoliberal ideologies

Nepal has seen a significant shift toward EMI at various educational levels, including tertiary education (Sah Reference Sah2023). English is increasingly used as a de facto MOI in Nepalese universities (Phyak Reference Phyak, Giri, Padwad, Md and Kabir2024). This shift is part of a broader trend where EMI is increasingly viewed as a means of enhancing educational quality and aligning with global standards (Sah and Karki Reference Sah and Karki2023). The adoption of EMI in Nepal has been a top-down policy decision, influenced by neoliberal market-oriented ideologies (Sah and Li Reference Sah and Li2017). These ideologies equate the use of English with quality education and global competitiveness (Sah and Karki Reference Sah and Karki2023). Policymakers have embraced EMI as a strategy to improve educational outcomes and prepare students for participation in the global economy. This approach reflects a belief that proficiency in English can open up opportunities for students, both locally and internationally (Phyak Reference Phyak, Giri, Padwad, Md and Kabir2024). As Sah (Reference Sah, McKinley and Galloway2022, 72) pointed out, ‘the EMI policy is a neoliberal endowment for Nepal's HE that has been developed through the state's policies and dispositions of privatization, internationalization and capitalism’, institutions’ pursuits of commodification and individual aspirations for upward socio-economic mobility.

Classroom practices and resistance

At the micro level, the implementation of EMI in classrooms often diverges from the macro-level policy aspirations. Research by Sah (Reference Sah, McKinley and Galloway2022) and others has demonstrated that teachers and students do not uniformly subscribe to the monolingual ideologies behind EMI. Instead, many teachers actively resist these ideologies to ensure meaningful participation for all students in classroom activities. This resistance is frequently manifested through translanguaging practices, where teachers and students fluidly switch between English and local languages to facilitate understanding and engagement. For example, Poudel's (Reference Poudel2010) study revealed that students often used Nepali to ask questions, whereas teachers responded in both English and Nepali, with lectures primarily conducted in English but frequently transitioning to Nepali.

Such resistance notwithstanding, language ideologies that valorize English and EMI remain dominant at the micro level, as documented by Sah's (Reference Sah2024) study, where teachers tried to maintain the dominance of English. Although EMI is perceived to offer benefits, its widespread implementation has raised concerns about epistemic injustice, particularly for students from indigenous communities (Phyak Reference Phyak, Giri, Padwad, Md and Kabir2024). These students often encounter significant barriers due to their low proficiency in English and limited access to educational resources (Neupane Bastola and Hu Reference Neupane Bastola, Hu, Giri, Padwad, Md and Kabir2024; Sah Reference Sah2023). The imposition of EMI can marginalize their linguistic and cultural identities, creating an unequal playing field where only those with prior English exposure can succeed (Phyak Reference Phyak, Giri, Padwad, Md and Kabir2024). In addition, Hultgren et al. (Reference Hultgren, Upadhaya, O'Hagan, Wingrove, Adamu, Greenfield and Lombardozzi2024) highlighted that the recent trend of offering English-medium education could undermine progress in gender equality, leading to unequal outcomes for boys and girls, potentially restricting girls' future opportunities, and worsening overall gender inequality in society. This situation underscores the risk of exacerbating existing educational inequalities and undermining the educational experiences of marginalized social groups (Hultgren et al. Reference Hultgren, Upadhaya, O'Hagan, Wingrove, Adamu, Greenfield and Lombardozzi2024; Sah Reference Sah, McKinley and Galloway2022, Reference Sah2023).