The following provides an abridged version of a paper titled ‘South Korean Higher Education English-Medium Instruction (EMI) Policy: From ‘Resentment’ to ‘Remedy’’ I recently publish in English Today. The full paper can be found in the following link: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078423000019

In recent years, South Korean universities’ ‘top-down’ implementation of English-medium instruction (EMI) policy has been critiqued for inadequately addressing the linguistic challenges students and instructors face (Kim, 2017). Research suggests that rapid implementation of such policy is primarily motivated by the pursuit of internationalisation, where global ranking takes precedence over the appropriateness of the policy (Cho, 2012), resulting in issues of injustice (Williams & Stelma, 2022). As a result, taking EMI courses is not a popular choice amongst South Korean higher education students.

Drawing upon reports of university students’ perceptions of EMI in South Korea as described in both academic studies (written in Korean or English) and newspaper articles, this paper provides an overview of how South Korean EMI policy leads to injustices for both national and international students and instructors who may not be first-language English speakers. Recommendations are made for a more overt practical shift to a socially just multilingual policy which will help to address the current injustices.

As a result of rapid EMI policy implementation, South Korean students taking EMI courses believe they are unprepared because of their insufficient English proficiency (Lee & Lee, 2018). To add to this, students are anxious because South Korean universities have neglected the students’ readiness for EMI (Byun et al., 2011). Their anxiety contributes to EMI course avoidance (Chun et al., 2017). Because of their lack of proficiency, students struggle to participate in discussions, write papers, and present in the English language (Hong et al., 2008). Students who perceive themselves as being of low social status also experience stress in EMI class situations (Kang & Cho, 2020).

To help cope with the challenges of having to teach and learn in the English language, it has been widely reported that the Korean language is viewed in South Korean EMI situations as a valuable ‘learning tool’. Kang (2014) discovered that, if given a choice, 64.5% of surveyed students would prefer Korean over English-medium instruction (see also Kim et al., 2017). Joe and Lee (2012) suggest a reason for this preference is that the Korean language reduces students’ anxiety and creates a more congenial atmosphere than when content is delivered in English. Research indicates that students perceive delivering content knowledge in English to be a challenge for Korean-first-language and other English-non-first-language EMI instructors. It appears that the use of the first language (i.e. Korean) to deliver content is commonly used to overcome this challenge by instructors proficient in the language, but often it may be used excessively for the duration of courses to the dismay of international students who are not proficient in Korean.

In South Korean higher education, the haphazard pursuit of internationalisation has imposed an inappropriate, poorly executed policy where hegemonic normative assumptions have resulted in prevailing injustices. To counteract and prevent further escalation of these injustices necessitates a ‘remedy’. Moving forward in this vein, an (‘intra’)nationalised dynamic needs to be accounted for in future policy. An (‘intra’)nationalised dynamic will involve a reflection on the realities of what happens/has been happening within the context where EMI is situated.

A pragmatic first step to maximise the teaching practices of instructors and the learning potentials of students would be to conduct an extensive needs analysis of the specific situation of their EMI context (see also Galloway et al., 2020 for further discussion). The needs analysis should focus on investigating the teaching and learning outcomes of EMI, linguistic proficiency challenges, teaching methodology challenges, cultural influences, disciplinary differences, and the necessary contextualised institutional support systems needed for both teachers and students. The outcomes of the needs analysis will take time to come into effect. In the interim, Korean-first-language EMI instructors of low English proficiency need to clearly state on their syllabi how, and for what purposes, both the English and Korean languages will be used during their EMI courses. This transparency will then make the multilingual dynamic of the course less hidden to international students when they register for courses.

To summarise, it is important for future policy makers to realise that both the Korean and English languages are used for different purposes in different situations in EMI courses. Worldwide, to fully understand the EMI situation at a university, an extensive needs analysis is the first step. The outcomes will help policy makers in EMI settings worldwide come to a better understanding of how L1 and L2 are a present dynamic in teaching and learning and that a move towards contextualised models of (‘intra’)nationalisation is also a move towards a socially just multilingual future.

References

Byun, K., Chu, H., Kim, M., Park, I., Kim, S. & Jung, J. 2011. ‘English-medium teaching in Korean higher education: Policy debates and reality.’ Higher Education, 62(4), 431–49.

Cho, D. W. 2012. ‘English-medium instruction in the university context of Korea: Trade-off between teaching outcomes and media-initiated university ranking.’ The Journal of Asia TEFL, 9(4), 135–63.

Chun, S. W., Kim, H. D., Park, C. K., McDonald, K., Ha, O. S, Kim, D. L. & Lee, S. M. 2017. ‘South Korean students’ responses to English-medium instruction courses.’ Social Behavior and Personality, 45(6), 951–65.

Galloway, N., Curle, S., Jablonkai, R., Mittelmeier, J., Sahan, K. & Veitch, A. 2020. English in Higher Education – English-Medium. Part 1: Literature Review. London: British Council.

Hong, S., Min, H. & Ham, E. 2008. ‘Characteristics of effective English-medium instruction and supporting learners in higher education: Need analysis of S university.’ Korean Journal of Education Research, 46(3), 305–29.

Joe, Y. J. & Lee, H. K. 2012. ‘Does English-medium instruction benefit students in EFL contexts? A case study of medical students in Korea.’ The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22, 201–7.  

Kang, A. & Cho, J. 2020. ‘Korean college students’ stress and coping in the context of English-medium instruction.’ Education and Culture Research, 26(1), 755–78.

Kang, J. H. 2014. ‘Excessive use of English-medium instruction ... academism is “disregarded”.’ Newsis, October 9.

Kim, E. G. 2017. ‘English-medium instruction in Korean higher education: Challenges and future directions.’ In B. Fenton-Smith, P. Humphreys & I. Walkinshaw (eds.), English-Medium Instruction in Higher Education in Asia-Pacific: From Policy to Pedagogy. Cham: Springer, pp. 54–72.

Kim, E. G., Kweon, S. O. & Kim, J. Y. 2017. ‘Korean engineering students’ perceptions of English-medium instruction (EMI) and L1 use in EMI classes.’ Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38(2), 130–45.

Lee, K. & Lee, H. 2018. ‘Korean graduate students’ self-perceptions of English skills and needs in an English-medium instruction context.’ Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39(8), 715–28.

Williams, D. G., & Stelma, J. (2022). Epistemic Outcomes of English Medium Instruction in a South Korean Higher Education Institution. Teaching in Higher Education, Special Issue: Critical Perspectives on Teaching in the Multilingual University. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2022.2049227