English Medium Instruction (EMI) at Universities: Policies and Practices in Vietnam and Thailand

In the era of globalization, English Medium Instruction (EMI) has become increasingly common in higher education, especially in countries where English is not the primary language. However, implementing this policy is far from simple. Between the ambition of internationalization and the realities of classroom practice, there remain significant gaps that need to be addressed.

1. The Trend of English Medium Instruction in Higher Education

According to Oxford University, EMI refers to the use of English to teach academic subjects (excluding English language courses) in countries where English is not the main language.

In Vietnam and Thailand, EMI is seen as a key tool to help students:

• Improve English proficiency.
• Gain a competitive edge in the labor market.
• Enhance opportunities for international integration.

Yet, the English-only model often sparks debate, particularly when adopted without careful assessment of the actual needs and conditions of local institutions.

2. EMI Implementation in Vietnam and Thailand

A survey conducted across universities in Vietnam and Thailand revealed that:

• English is widely used in classrooms, but it has not completely replaced the local language.
• Lecturers often switch to the mother tongue to clarify complex concepts, especially in specialized fields.
• Most students support the idea of using English exclusively, believing it helps them improve their language skills more quickly.

Interestingly, many students prefer lecturers with native-like accents or international study backgrounds, reflecting the widespread belief that “native accents = high-quality teaching.” However, this perception does not always align with actual pedagogical competence.

3. The Role of the Mother Tongue in EMI

Although EMI policies emphasize English use, in practice:

• The mother tongue remains a crucial support tool for comprehension.
• Bilingual use helps reduce stress and build stronger rapport between lecturers and students.
• For subjects filled with academic jargon, exclusive use of English can be a barrier, whereas local language support makes learning more accessible.

That said, the use of the local language in EMI settings is still largely ad-hoc and has yet to be formally recognized as a legitimate teaching approach.

4. The “Native Speaker Norm” and Its Impact on Recruitment

A prominent issue is the tendency to favor lecturers with native accents or overseas education experience. This creates several challenges:

• Bias in recruitment, undervaluing local lecturers.
• Limited career opportunities for domestic educators.
• Difficulty in hiring qualified EMI lecturers in non-English-speaking countries.

While research in Global Englishes demonstrates that teaching effectiveness is not determined by accent, the native speaker bias still strongly influences higher education practices.

5. Adjustments Needed for More Effective EMI

For EMI to truly maximize its benefits, several adjustments are necessary:

• More flexibility in language use: Instead of rigid “English-only” policies, allow strategic use of the local language to support comprehension.
• Encourage translanguaging: Explore and implement bilingual or code-switching approaches to enhance teaching and learning.
• Rethink recruitment criteria: Focus on teaching competence, experience, and pedagogy, rather than overemphasizing native-like accents or foreign education backgrounds.
   

EMI is an inevitable trend in higher education in Vietnam and Thailand, offering students greater global opportunities. However, for this model to succeed, universities must:

• Apply EMI flexibly, integrating both English and the local language.
• Redefine recruitment criteria to ensure fairness.
• Prioritize pedagogical ability over superficial markers like accent.

With these adjustments, EMI can become a truly effective tool, fostering equitable, high-quality, and internationally oriented learning environments.