1. English-medium instruction (EMI) is a pedagogical strategy adopted by higher education institutions to improve students' English proficiency and internationalize tertiary education.
2. While EMI has been perceived positively by both students and teachers, challenges such as gaps between policies and practices, inadequate English proficiency of instructors and students, and lack of effective training for instructors have been identified.
3. A meta-analysis of empirical findings on the effectiveness of EMI in China can inform future directions for sustaining EMI students' academic development in similar contexts worldwide.
The article provides a comprehensive overview of English-medium instruction (EMI) as a pedagogical strategy in higher education institutions, with a focus on its effectiveness in promoting content learning and English language learning achievements in the Chinese context. The authors have conducted a meta-analysis of empirical findings to synthesize the evidence regarding the effectiveness of EMI in China.
The article presents a balanced view of the perceptions and measured effectiveness of EMI, highlighting both positive attitudes and perceived challenges and obstacles. However, there are some potential biases and limitations that need to be considered. For instance, the authors have excluded Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan from their analysis due to historical differences in educational policies and practices. This exclusion may limit the generalizability of their findings to other similar contexts.
Moreover, while the article acknowledges that EMI practices vary greatly at geographical, institutional, and even classroom levels, it does not provide sufficient evidence or analysis to support its claims about the effectiveness of EMI in promoting content learning and English language learning achievements. The authors have relied heavily on previous research studies that report positive attitudes toward EMI without critically evaluating their methodologies or potential biases.
Furthermore, the article does not explore counterarguments or alternative perspectives on EMI as a pedagogical strategy. For instance, some scholars have raised concerns about the potential risks of EMI for non-native English speakers, such as linguistic imperialism or cultural hegemony [30]. These issues are not adequately addressed in this article.
Overall, while the article provides a useful overview of EMI as a pedagogical strategy in higher education institutions, it would benefit from more critical analysis and evaluation of its claims and assumptions. Future research should aim to address these limitations by conducting more rigorous empirical studies that examine the effectiveness of EMI across different contexts and populations.