Misconception 1: English–medium instruction guarantees quality education

Much of the research on stakeholders’ (e.g., parents and policymakers) perceptions of EMI suggests that a key driver of its widespread adoption in multilingual contexts is the belief that EMI ensures high-quality education (Milligan Reference Milligan2020; Phyak and Sah Reference Sah2022; Sah and Li Reference Sah and Li2018). This assumption stems from English’s global prestige and its ties to modernity and socioeconomic advancement (Sahan & Şahan, Reference Sahan and Şahan2021). However, the quality of education depends on a complex interplay of factors – language proficiency, pedagogical practices, curriculum relevance, teacher training and sociocultural contexts (Guo et al. Reference Guo, He and Wang2024; Kirkpatrick Reference Kirkpatrick2011). The medium of instruction alone is not a sufficient indicator of educational quality.

One of the most persistent issues with EMI is the assumption that students and teachers possess sufficient proficiency in English to engage in meaningful teaching and learning. Yet, evidence from multiple contexts shows that both learners and teachers often struggle with English, which oftentimes impedes comprehension and reduces opportunities for interaction and critical thinking (Dearden Reference Dearden2015; Macaro et al. Reference Macaro, Curle, Pun, An and Dearden2017; Sert Reference Sert2008). For example, in many parts of sub–Saharan Africa, South and Southeast Asia and Latin America, EMI policies have been implemented without adequate teacher preparation or language support, leading to what some researchers describe as ‘subtractive education’ – where students neither learn English effectively nor master subject content (Heugh Reference Heugh, Harding–Esch and Coleman2021; Lasagabaster Reference Lasagabaster2022; Tollefson and Tsui Reference Tollefson and Tsui2004). In Kuchah’s (Reference Kuchah2016, 322) study in EMI schools in Cameroon, teachers highlighted how the lack of proficiency in English poses challenges for both teachers and students, which are ‘the main factors militating against quality learning in EMI’. Therefore, he argued that EMI policy in such multilingual contexts ‘poses significant barriers to the quality of learning’ (Kuchah Reference Kuchah2016, 315). The students in AlBakri’s (Reference AlBakri2017, 2) study in Oman also stated that EMI compromised their learning of disciplinary knowledge, and they believed that Arabic ‘would lead to a more comprehensive understanding of the subject matter and would most probably lead to better academic performance’. These studies conducted across EMI contexts highlight that the language of instruction matters significantly in shaping learning outcomes. According to UNESCO (2003), education is most effective when learners are taught in a language they understand well, typically their first language. Studies in Ethiopia, Pakistan, Vietnam and elsewhere reveal that using English as the medium of instruction – especially in early grades – can lead to cognitive overload, reduced student participation, and poor academic performance (Brock–Utne Reference Brock–Utne2007).

The belief that EMI equates quality education is also sometimes driven by the narratives and cases of elite schools and universities, whose graduates typically succeed in high–stakes examinations (Sah Reference Sah2022; Sah and Karki Reference Sah and Karki2023). In reality, as Guo et al. (Reference Guo, He and Wang2024) show in the Chinese context, the success of EMI in providing quality education depends on other conditions, such as extra efforts by students and teachers, their interest and motivation, as well as course-related factors. They argued, ‘During the learning process in EMI programmes, effort [from teachers and students] plays a major role in affecting student performance’ (Guo et al. Reference Guo, He and Wang2024, 3581). Hence, simply adopting English as the medium of instruction does not inherently promote quality education.

Furthermore, the assumption that EMI inherently promotes educational quality often masks deeper structural inequalities. As stated earlier, the perceived success of EMI schools is frequently tied to elite institutions with well resourced environments, qualified teachers and middle–class students who have prior exposure to English (Amin and Hamid Reference Amin, Obaid Hamid, Pramod and Fang2023; Sah and Karki Reference Sah and Karki2023). In contrast, public schools adopting EMI without these structural supports often experience a decline in educational quality. This suggests that the advantages attributed to EMI may in fact stem from broader socioeconomic privileges rather than the language of instruction itself (Shohamy Reference Shohamy2006).

Misconception 2: English–medium education promotes equality

In many post–colonial societies in the Global South, EMI is often seen as a pathway to social mobility and equality, particularly for marginalized communities (Milligan Reference Milligan2020; Sah and Li Reference Sah and Li2018). In India, for example, studies showed that English–medium education is widely believed to offer disadvantaged groups – such as those marginalized by caste, class, gender, or ethnicity – a chance at upward mobility (LaDousa Reference LaDousa2014; Mohanty Reference Mohanty2019; Rao Reference Rao and Coleman2017). Gopalkrishna (Reference Gopalkrishna2012) describes how some Dalit communities (the low Hindi caste) installed a statue they called the ‘English Goddess’ and worshipped it, symbolizing their hopes that English could free them from social and economic exclusion. English is often imagined as a ticket to better jobs, global opportunities, and a modern identity.

However, this belief often hides deeper structural inequalities. Without fair access to qualified teachers and learning resources, EMI tends to widen existing gaps rather than closing them (Erling et al. Reference Erling, Adinolfi and Hultgren2017; Tollefson and Tsui Reference Tollefson and Tsui2004; Sah and Li Reference Sah and Li2018). The idea that EMI brings equality is also rooted in colonial legacies. Under colonial rule, English was used to train local elites, and over time, English–medium education became associated with power and prestige (Faust and Nagar Reference Faust and Nagar2001; Kularathne and Karunakaran Reference Kularathne, Karunakaran, Giri, Padwad and Kabir2023). Today, these colonial ideologies persist and are further reinforced through neoliberal values, where elite English–medium schools overshadow under–resourced public ones (Sah Reference Sah2022; Sah and Fang Reference Sah and Fan Fang2023). As Boruah and Mohanty (Reference Boruah, Mohanty, Daghigh, Jan and Kaur2022, 51) argue, ‘the economically stable middle class nurtures English and keeps the neoliberal rhetoric alive through investment in EME [English–medium education]’.

Under the pretext of neoliberal educational practices, access to quality EMI is shaped by privilege. Students from wealthier backgrounds benefit from early English exposure, private tutors, and better schools (Annamalai Reference Annamalai2005; Hamid et al. Reference Hamid, Jahan and Islam2013; Piller and Cho Reference Piller and Cho2013). Their success is less about EMI policy and more about accumulated social advantages. In contrast, students from rural or low–income communities often find themselves in poorly equipped EMI classrooms, with limited support and undertrained teachers (Dearden Reference Dearden2015; Macaro et al. Reference Macaro, Curle, Pun, An and Dearden2017).

Moreover, the push for EMI often ignores the benefits of mother tongue education. Research, including UNESCO’s (2003) recommendations, shows that learning in one’s first language supports stronger academic performance and greater inclusion (Benson Reference Benson2004; Heugh Reference Heugh2013, Reference Heugh, Harding–Esch and Coleman2021). Imposing EMI too early can hinder understanding and learning – a phenomenon Cummins (Reference Cummins2000) describes as ‘cognitive short–circuiting.’ It also devalues local languages and knowledge systems, threatening linguistic diversity and cultural identity (Skutnabb–Kangas and Phillipson Reference Skutnabb–Kangas, Phillipson, McCarty and May2017). EMI often reflects Western education models that may feel disconnected or alienating to students from non–dominant communities (Park and Wee Reference Park and Wee2012; Pennycook Reference Pennycook2017).

Misconception 3: English–medium instruction inherently develops English proficiency

One of the most common reasons parents and students support EMI is the belief that it improves English proficiency (Curle et al. Reference Curle, Yuksel, Soruç and Altay2020; Guo et al. Reference Guo, He and Wang2024; Lei and Hu Reference Lei and Hu2014; Sah and Li Reference Sah and Li2018). Many assume that simply switching the language of instruction to English will naturally boost students’ language skills. However, research suggests otherwise. Without strong pedagogical and structural support, EMI often fails to deliver on this promise (Curle et al. Reference Curle, Yuksel, Soruç and Altay2020; Lei and Hu Reference Lei and Hu2014). For example, a study in China found no significant improvement in students’ English use from EMI itself; rather, targeted English instruction had a greater impact (Lei and Hu Reference Lei and Hu2014). While some studies (e.g., Hong and Basturkmen Reference Hong and Basturkmen2020) have shown that EMI courses may facilitate incidental learning of disciplinary vocabulary and discourses, it does not necessarily enhance overall language competence. These findings suggest that English proficiency development in EMI settings depends less on the medium of instruction itself and more on factors such as dedicated language instruction, learner motivation, and individual investment.

Language acquisition requires more than exposure – it demands interaction, scaffolding, and purpose–driven engagement (Ellis Reference Ellis2005; Lightbown and Spada Reference Lightbown and Spada2013). In many EMI classrooms, especially in under–resourced public schools in the Global South, these conditions are rarely present. Teachers often struggle with English themselves and lack training in integrating language and content (Dearden Reference Dearden2015; Macaro et al. Reference Macaro, Curle, Pun, An and Dearden2017). As a result, they may rely on rote instruction or frequent code–switching to manage lessons (Coleman 2010; Mohanty Reference Mohanty2019; Sah and Kubota Reference Sah and Kubota2022). This limits both content understanding and language development. Students, meanwhile, often face the double burden of learning complex material in a language they have not yet mastered, which can impede participation and critical thinking (Erling et al. Reference Erling, Adinolfi and Hultgren2017).

Therefore, the assumption that EMI alone develops English proficiency overlooks key pedagogical realities. Language learning is not a passive process that occurs simply through exposure to English–language textbooks or instruction. Without adequate teacher preparation, structured support and interactive opportunities for students to practice English meaningfully, EMI may do little to enhance English proficiency. Instead, it risks creating classrooms where neither content nor language learning is fully achieved.

Misconception 4: Subjects like mathematics, science, and computer science should be taught in English

Another widespread misconception is that STEM subjects – like mathematics, science, and computer science – should be taught in English because it is seen as the ‘natural’ or most appropriate language for these fields. This belief shapes not only the views of parents and students but also influences education policies. For example, while Nepal’s 2019 National Education Policy encourages using students’ home languages in the early years, it still mandates English as the medium for science and mathematics, based on the assumption that English is the language of science and technology (Sah and Li Reference Sah, Li, Downes, Li, Van Praag and Lamb2024). Teachers and students often share this belief, assuming that English is a more effective and neutral medium for technical learning (Manan and Hajar Reference Manan and Hajar2024; Sah Reference Sah2023). However, research shows that this assumption overlooks important pedagogical and cognitive concerns.

Students learn more effectively when they understand the language of instruction. Deep learning in science and math depends on clear conceptual understanding, which is difficult when lessons are delivered in a language students have not mastered (Cummins Reference Cummins2000; Heugh Reference Heugh, Harding–Esch and Coleman2021). Studies from Africa and South Asia show that students perform better in STEM subjects when taught in their mother tongue or a familiar language, especially in the early and middle years of schooling (Benson Reference Benson2004; Mohanty Reference Mohanty2019). Meanwhile, many STEM teachers are not equipped to teach in English or support students’ language development. In Kazakhstan, for instance, Manan and Hajar (Reference Manan and Hajar2024) found that science teachers saw themselves as responsible only for content, not for helping students learn English. This disconnection between language policy expectations and teachers’ actual practices and capacities further complicates the implementation of EMI in STEM education, potentially undermining both content learning and language development.

Another justification for using English in STEM is the lack of equivalent terms in local languages. Although some scientific vocabulary lack direct translations, this does not justify entire instruction in English. Research in multilingual education shows that technical terms can remain in English while the rest of the lesson is taught in a language students understand (Heugh Reference Heugh, Harding–Esch and Coleman2021). A translanguaging approach, where students and teachers move fluidly between languages, can make learning more inclusive and effective (García and Li Reference García and Wei2014). In fact, many universities in multilingual contexts already use bilingual strategies – teaching in English while offering explanations, glossaries, or support in local languages (Erling et al. Reference Erling, Adinolfi and Hultgren2017).

Misconception 5: English–medium education is necessary for professional and economic development

Another common assumption connects EMI with better career opportunities—such as enhanced skills, increased employability, and access to global jobs—and broader economic growth driven by heightened competitiveness and income. However, this connection is not inherent to EMI itself but is shaped by larger sociolinguistic and ideological forces surrounding English (Choi Reference Choi2008; Huang and Curle Reference Huang and Curle2021). For example, Sah and Li’s (Reference Sah and Li2018) study in a Nepali EMI school found that many teachers, students, and parents viewed EMI as a gateway to higher education, economic mobility, and participation in the global knowledge economy. Yet, the authors cautioned that this portrayal of EMI as an equalizing force for marginalized communities was largely illusory, describing it as a superficial promise’ (Sah and Li Reference Sah and Li2018, 120). Similarly, Sah and Karki (Reference Sah and Karki2023) reported that parents feared their children would be unemployable without EMI–based English learning. These beliefs are not limited to school communities; policymakers and politicians also promote them, often using the narrative of EMI as a tool for upward mobility to divert attention from deeper structural issues. As Sah (Reference Sah2025) argues, such narratives constitute a politics of distraction, a strategy to divert public attention from structural issues while advancing their own agendas, such as promoting privatization in public education through the commodification of EMI.

While some studies suggest that EMI may support career advancement, these claims largely rely on stakeholders’ perceptions rather than concrete outcomes. In their survey of EMI students in China, Huang and Curle (Reference Huang and Curle2021) found widespread belief in EMI’s benefits for employment. However, these views often stemmed from the value attributed to English proficiency itself, not the effectiveness of EMI programs. As discussed earlier, EMI does not guarantee improved English skills. Moreover, many respondents reported limited use of English in their workplaces, apart from occasional interactions with foreigners, thereby questioning the blanket justification of EMI based solely on its association with English. Choi’s (Reference Choi2008) review of EMI in Malaysia, Singapore, and Hong Kong shows that English–medium education is not intrinsically beneficial; its success depends on the broader educational and economic context. Across South and Southeast Asia and sub–Saharan Africa, research consistently finds that employment opportunities are more influenced by factors such as access to quality education, vocational training, social capital, and systemic inequalities than by the language of instruction alone (Erling et al. Reference Erling, Adinolfi and Hultgren2017; Heugh Reference Heugh, Harding–Esch and Coleman2021). Kubota (Reference Kubota2011) similarly notes that in countries like China, South Korea, and Thailand, public discourse often overstates the role of English, even though its use in everyday professional contexts is limited.

These findings raise a critical question: How many people secure employment solely because they speak English? While English may be necessary in certain sectors, such as tourism and media, its overall role in national economic development is often exaggerated. In Nepal, for instance, the latest census shows that only 7.3% of the population lives abroad, mostly in non–English–speaking countries. Designing the national education system around EMI for this small group is a misguided policy choice that ignores the needs of the majority. Moreover, English proficiency can be developed later in life as needed. Research in second language acquisition shows that motivated adult learners can reach workplace–level English within a few months of targeted instruction (Ellis Reference Ellis2008). This raises a fundamental question: Is it necessary to impose EMI from the earliest years of schooling just to ensure English proficiency later in life?

Misconception 6: The ‘more and earlier’ approach is beneficial in English–medium education

In many multilingual societies, language–in–education policies – whether explicit or implicit – are often driven by a ‘more and earlier’ approach, based on the assumption that early exposure to EMI will accelerate English language acquisition. For example, Sayer (Reference Sayer2015) observed that in Mexico, policymakers promoted English instruction in kindergarten, believing that early immersion would yield better outcomes. Bentley (Reference Bentley2020), in a commissioned Cambridge Papers in ELT report, similarly argued for early English exposure, claiming it promotes linguistic richness and learner confidence. These points have been broadly used to support the adoption of EMI in early childhood education, often treating it as an automatic immersion model.

However, recent research increasingly challenges the effectiveness of this approach. Studies suggest that early EMI may not only fall short of delivering linguistic benefits but may also hinder children’s cognitive, social, and academic development. Cognitive and educational psychology consistently shows that young children learn best when taught in their mother tongue, especially during foundational years (Baker Reference Baker2011). Cummins (Reference Cummins2000) emphasizes that cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) – the ability to process complex academic content – takes years to develop and is best nurtured in a familiar language. Evidence from Latin America and South Asia shows that children taught in their first language in early schooling outperform their peers in academic achievement and critical thinking (Heugh Reference Heugh, Harding–Esch and Coleman2021).

By contrast, early EMI often leads to cognitive overload. Young learners may struggle to understand academic content delivered in an unfamiliar language, resulting in gaps in both subject knowledge and English proficiency. Research also highlights that early immersion can impede first language development, which is foundational to overall cognitive growth (García and Li Reference García and Wei2014). The pressure to simultaneously acquire a new language and academic skills may negatively impact academic performance and self–esteem (Liu et al. Reference Liu, Cao and Gao2022). Contemporary bilingual education research supports a more gradual, balanced approach. Studies showed that learners benefit most when instruction initially occurs in their first language, with English introduced gradually as a second language (Cummins Reference Cummins2000). This model enables students to build strong foundations in both languages and fosters transferable cognitive skills. The issue, therefore, is not the age of English exposure, but the quality and timing of instruction within a bilingual framework. Instead of adhering to the myth that ‘more and earlier’ is inherently better, education policies should prioritize mother–tongue instruction in early education, introducing English progressively to support both language development and academic success.

Misconception 7: EMI is an English–only teaching and learning space

Research shows that many stakeholders – particularly teachers and parents – perceive EMI as an English-only space, where the use of other languages is discouraged or even prohibited. This view is often based on the idea that EMI improves English skills, particularly when using a ‘more and earlier’ approach. (Lei and Hu Reference Lei and Hu2014; Sah and Karki Reference Sah and Karki2023; Sah and Li Reference Sah and Li2018; Sayer Reference Sayer2015). As a result, many parents and students opt for EMI programs based on the assumption that maximal exposure to English in a monolingual environment will most effectively support language development. In practice, however, EMI classrooms are rarely monolingual (Paulsrud et al. Reference Paulsrud, Zhongfeng and Toth2021; Sah and Kubota Reference Sah and Kubota2022; Sah and Li Reference Sah and Li2022; Yuan and Yang Reference Yuan and Yang2020). For instance, Sah and Kubota’s (Reference Sah and Kubota2022) review of translanguaging in EMI classrooms across South Asia found that, despite the English–only expectations held by some parents and school administrators, multilingual practices were the norm. These practices were often driven by two key factors: teachers’ inclusive pedagogical orientations and their limited English proficiency. Such multilingual use was typically spontaneous and emerged as a pragmatic coping strategy rather than a formally planned instructional approach.

Increasing evidence from bilingual and multilingual education challenges the assumption that EMI must be English–only. Research in second language acquisition supports the pedagogical value of integrating students’ home languages into instruction. Cummins (Reference Cummins2000) argues that first and second language development are interdependent, and strengthening the first can support the acquisition of the second. In multilingual classrooms, the use of students’ home languages has been shown to enhance participation, engagement, and confidence. For instance, Creese and Blackledge (Reference Creese and Blackledge2010) found that code–switching helps learners build on existing linguistic knowledge to understand new concepts, fostering deeper learning and critical thinking. Conversely, enforcing English–only policies can be harmful. Such restrictions often lead to student frustration, disengagement, and diminished self–esteem, particularly when learners struggle to understand content delivered in an unfamiliar language (Sah Reference Sah2023; Skutnabb–Kangas Reference Skutnabb–Kangas2000). These policies also violate students’ linguistic human rights, including the right to use their own language in education – rights recognized by international organizations such as the United Nations.

Therefore, EMI programs should move away from viewing local languages as barriers and instead embrace them as valuable educational resources. Research consistently links inclusive multilingual approaches with improved academic performance and stronger language outcomes (Baker Reference Baker2011). Teachers and policymakers should create environments that allow students to use their home languages alongside English. Promoting translanguaging not only enhances learning but also affirms students’ identities and supports more equitable and inclusive education (García and Li Reference García and Wei2014; Heugh Reference Heugh, Harding–Esch and Coleman2021).