Introduction
The Medium of Instruction (MOI) in schools affects students’ learning outcomes, comprehension, and overall educational experience. When students are fluent in the MOI, it enhances academic achievement and preserves linguistic and cultural heritage. Conversely, using a global language like English can prepare students for international commerce and communication. However, choosing a specific MOI can affect educational equity, especially for underprivileged students who may lack exposure to the language. Challenges include difficulties with complex concepts due to limited proficiency, inadequate teaching materials, extensive training needs for effective EMI (English as a medium of instruction), increased anxiety and stress, lack of community and parental support, and cultural disconnects. Given its impact on learning, cultural preservation, and socioeconomic mobility, MOI is crucial. Although Nepal’s constitution allows schools to teach in the learners’ mother tongues up to the secondary level, the shift towards EMI is accelerating. Against this backdrop, this paper explores the social injustice and equity issues stemming from the EMI policy in government-aided schools.
EMI and Social Justice
The EMI policy requires that academic courses be taught in schools primarily in English. This strategy seeks to increase educational quality and better equip students for global possibilities by raising their English proficiency. Nepal is a linguistically and culturally diverse country. Major adjustments to curriculum, teacher preparation, and instructional strategies are required for the transition to EMI. “Universities have encouraged and maintained structural inequality by using foreign languages as a medium of instruction with the goal of internationalization, globalization, and improved employment opportunities” (Alhamami, 2023, p.1). It means universities often adopt foreign languages, such as English, as the medium of instruction to align with goals of internationalization, globalization, and enhancing employment opportunities. While these objectives are beneficial in many ways, this practice can also perpetuate structural inequality. One significant aspect is access to education. Students from poorer backgrounds might not have the resources to learn a foreign language proficiently, creating a barrier to accessing higher education (Macaro et al., 2018). Even when students from less privileged backgrounds gain admission, their lower proficiency in the MOI can impede their academic performance and engagement.
Another issue is cultural marginalization. Emphasizing foreign languages can lead to the devaluation and neglect of local languages and cultures, causing a cultural shift and loss of heritage (Phyak, 2021). Students might feel alienated from their own culture and history if the curriculum and classroom interactions are dominated by a foreign language and associated cultural norms. Adopting EMI policies could worsen inequality in education and marginalize regional languages and cultures, which can result in social injustice. Students from underprivileged or rural backgrounds frequently lack the tools and assistance required to thrive in English-medium classrooms, which exacerbates the divide between them and their richer or urban equivalents (Singh, 2024). For these students, this may lead to poorer academic achievement, less self-esteem, and fewer opportunities in the future. Furthermore, giving English preference over regional languages might threaten cultural legacies and identities, which will reduce linguistic variety. Students may be further disadvantaged by teachers who lack the necessary training to teach English. Phyak and Sah (2022) contend that to rectify these injustices, EMI policies must be inclusive, offering ample support for every student while acknowledging the value of the local languages and cultures. Inclusivity in EMI policies involves ensuring that all students, regardless of their English proficiency levels, have access to the necessary resources and support to succeed. This includes specialized language training, additional instructional materials, and tailored teaching methods that accommodate diverse learning needs.
EMI and Equity Issue
Nepal’s EMI policies draw attention to equitable issues. Urban schools often possess superior resources for teaching English, which disadvantages children from rural and marginalised areas (Sah & Fang, 2023). Disparities are exacerbated by differences in teacher preparation and educators’ low English proficiency. Diversity in language and culture may potentially deteriorate, which would impact students’ identities and academic performance (Jinghui, 2023). To address these problems, rules that strike a balance between maintaining cultural traditions and promoting English proficiency must be implemented, as well as targeted help for schools that are underfunded. EMI policies can exacerbate educational inequalities by favouring students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds and urban areas with better access to English education, thereby widening the rural-urban divide. Sah and Li (2018) argue that the application of EMI policies may lead to inequalities in educational access and quality between different socioeconomic levels, urban and rural areas, and government and private schools.
The dominance of English may lead to the marginalization of local languages and cultures, fostering cultural imperialism (Phillipson, 2006). Educators should study into these differences to offer strategies for creating a more equitable and inclusive learning environment. Furthermore, many teachers are not sufficiently trained to instruct in English, which could lead to worse-than-ideal learning outcomes, particularly for pupils who are not native English speakers and find it difficult to process new information. Providing equitable access to high-quality education and opportunities for personal and professional development for all students, regardless of their socioeconomic background, is fundamental to EMI’s social justice mission. Sah and Fang (2023) also assert that ensuring all students, regardless of their socioeconomic background, have equitable access to high-quality education and opportunities for personal and professional growth is a key component of EMI’s social justice mission. Enacting EMI policies can aid in closing educational inequalities by giving pupils the language proficiency required to succeed in an increasingly globalised society (Sah & Li, 2018).
As a result, they may be able to advance their careers and engage in global dialogue. On the other hand, EMI may produce inequities that need to be addressed to achieve real social justice, such as the marginalization of regional languages and cultures and differences in the distribution of resources between urban and rural schools (Milligan, 2022). Implementing comprehensive teacher training, equitable resource distribution, and policies that support multilingualism can mitigate the challenges associated with EMI in Nepal (Phyak & Sah, 2022). In a similar vein, Solomone (2015) also contends that EMI can be a powerful tool for advancing social justice and equitable education by striking a balance between the advantages of English proficiency and the necessity of maintaining language and cultural variety.
Employment inequality is also a concern. Jobs that require proficiency in English further disadvantage those who do not have access to quality language education (Sah & Li, 2018). Moreover, the focus on global employment opportunities can undermine local job markets and economies, affecting students who wish to work within their communities. The quality of education can suffer as well. Not all instructors might be equally proficient in EMI which can affect the quality of education delivered. Additionally, students may struggle to fully grasp complex concepts if they are not taught in their first language, leading to gaps in understanding and academic achievement. Social stratification is exacerbated by the use of EMI in schools (Parajuli, 2022). Proficiency in the English language often becomes a marker of social status, creating an elite class that has better access to education and employment opportunities. There can also be implicit or explicit discrimination against those who are less proficient in the foreign language, affecting their academic and professional growth.
Negotiating Global and Local Language Policy
To balance global and local needs, schools can promote bilingual education to help balance the need for internationalization with the preservation of local languages and cultures. Providing additional support for students struggling with EMI can help mitigate some of the inequalities. Furthermore, governments can develop inclusive policies that recognize and address the structural inequalities arising from the use of EMI (Phyak & Sah, 2022). By considering these factors, schools can work towards creating a more equitable educational environment that leverages the benefits of internationalization while minimizing structural inequalities.
Moreover, providing sufficient support means not only focusing on language acquisition but also addressing other academic and emotional needs of students. This could involve training teachers to be sensitive to the challenges faced by non-native English speakers and implementing support systems such as tutoring programs, counselling services, and peer mentoring (Nguyen, 2024). Finally, respecting local languages and cultures is essential in maintaining students’ cultural identity and motivation. This can be achieved by incorporating bilingual education models, promoting the use of mother tongues in early education, and integrating cultural content into the curriculum. By doing so, students can develop a strong foundation in their native language while gradually acquiring proficiency in English, resulting in a more balanced and effective learning experience.
While curriculum development and teacher training are crucial for effective EMI, these resources are often underfunded and inadequate for meeting the diverse needs of students. The neoliberal objective of EMI is to boost global competitiveness by ensuring students gain proficiency in English, which is seen as vital for participating in the global economy and accessing international opportunities (Tupas, 2018). However, this focus on neoliberal goals and economic constraints can overshadow issues of social justice and educational equity. To ensure that EMI fosters global opportunities without reinforcing social inequities, it is essential to advocate for bilingual education policies, involve communities in policymaking, and implement equity-focused funding to support disadvantaged students and schools. Researchers should aim to improve policy quality by exploring the motivations, challenges, and impacts of EMI policies. A thorough understanding of EMI’s effectiveness will help create policies that balance the demands of global English proficiency with the preservation of regional languages and cultures.
Conclusion
To conclude, EMI can improve employment prospects and worldwide communication, but it also frequently makes educational disparities worse, especially for poor children in Nepal. The students deal with issues including marginalization due to their culture, poor language skills, and inadequate instructional tools. EMI frequently benefits wealthy and urban students, widening the gap between rural and urban areas and endangering language variety and cultural identities. Furthermore, a lot of teachers are not properly trained to teach English, which results in less-than-ideal learning outcomes. Specialized language instruction and individualized teaching strategies are only two of the inclusive policies that are required to solve these problems and help all students. Encouraging bilingual education strikes a compromise between maintaining regional languages and customs and fostering global English competence. Ensuring equitable resource distribution, comprehensive teacher training, and community involvement in policymaking are crucial steps towards creating an inclusive educational environment. By recognizing and addressing the challenges of EMI, we can foster an education system that values both global competitiveness and cultural heritage, providing equal opportunities for all students regardless of their socioeconomic background.
References
Alhamami, M. (2023). Inequity, inequality, and language rights in English as a medium of instruction programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 99, 102297.
Jinghui, S. (2023). Lost in the EMI trend: language-related issues emerging from EMI practice. SAGE Open, 13(3), 21582440231181494.
Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language teaching, 51(1), 36-76.
Milligan, L. O. (2022). Towards a social and epistemic justice approach for exploring the injustices of English as a Medium of Instruction in basic education. Educational Review, 74(5), 927-941.
Nguyen, T. M. A. (2024). Effectiveness and equity in English-medium instruction: A comparative longitudinal study in a Vietnamese university (Doctoral dissertation, The Open University).
Phillipson, R. (2006). Language policy and linguistic imperialism. An introduction to language policy: Theory and method, 346-361.
Phyak, P. (2021). Subverting the erasure: Decolonial efforts, indigenous language education and language policy in Nepal. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 20(5), 325-339.
Phyak, P., & Sah, P. K. (2022). Epistemic injustice and neoliberal imaginations in English as a medium of instruction (EMI) policy. Applied Linguistics Review.
Sah, P. K., & Fang, F. (Eds.). (2023). Policies, politics, and ideologies of English-medium instruction in Asian universities: Unsettling critical edges. Taylor & Francis.
Sah, P. K., & Li, G. (2018). English medium instruction (EMI) as linguistic capital in Nepal: Promises and realities. International Multilingual Research Journal, 12(2), 109-123.
Salomone, R. (2015). The rise of global English: Challenges for English-medium instruction and language rights. Language Problems and Language Planning, 39(3), 245-268.
Singh, R. B. (2024). “Challenges and Coping Strategies of Teaching English in an Under-Resourced Context: A Narrative Inquiry”. APPROVED B (Doctoral dissertation, Kathmandu University School of Education).).
Tupas, R. (2018). Market English as medium of instruction: Education in neoliberal times. In English medium instruction programmes (pp. 104-115). Routledge.
Author Bio: Nirmala Dhami is an Assistant Professor at Far Western University and a Ph.D. scholar. Her research interests include English Language Teaching (ELT), English Medium Instruction (EMI) policy and pedagogy, linguistic hegemony, and globalization. She is also focused on the professional development of teachers and research in policy and planning to enhance educational practices and outcomes.
