With the global expansion of English, the use of English as a medium of instruction (EMI) has been a growing phenomenon, often tied to discourses on internationalization in the reform of higher education.
In Taiwan, the number of EMI programs has steadily increased since the government joined the WTO in 2002.
EMI has been promoted through a series of policy statements and funding schemes, such as the Challenge 2008: National Development Plan and the Aim for the Top University Project. The Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council has accredited 121 programs taught in English.
Taiwanese universities regard EMI as indispensable, not only to enhance institutional academic ranking, but also to increase staff mobility, graduate employability and international student exchanges.
However, EMI’s rapid expansion faces much controversy, especially concerning the actual implementation of classroom teaching.
Depending on social and educational needs, switching the medium of instruction is not merely a matter of translation, but may involve a more complex restructuring of pedagogy, as well as modified linguistic practices.
Specifically, many academics highlight the effect of disciplinary differences on EMI, arguing that English might be suitable for teaching some subjects, but not others.
This concern is reflected in the disproportionate distribution of EMI courses across academic disciplines on the Study in Taiwan Web site, where most of the accredited EMI programs fall into engineering, technology, agriculture, fishing, medicine, and environmental studies.
Although EMI programs in business and management share a considerable proportion, those that are categorized in the social sciences and humanities only comprise approximately one-eighth of the list.
This discipline imbalance regarding EMI also drew public attention in a heated debate last year when policymakers at National Chengchi University tried to enforce regulations on the number of EMI courses that each professor, regardless of discipline, should teach.
Because the school takes pride in its leading role in the social sciences and humanities in Taiwan, a number of professors from the faculties of history, literature, and philosophy worried that using a foreign language to deliver highly complex and contextualized concepts would compromise the quality of education.
However, how can the effect of disciplinary differences on EMI be explained?
A fundamental point to acknowledge is that the language of instruction is deeply implicated in the construction and communication of meaning across disciplines.
First, knowledge is constructed differently in the sciences than in the humanities. Knowledge structures in the sciences tend to be more linear and cumulative, often operating on an agreed set of specialist terminology as well as established methods and procedures for conducting research.
By contrast, knowledge structures in the humanities are characterized as interpretive and context specific, where the focus is placed on creative thinking and fluent expression.
Because of this, linguistic demands in the humanities are heavier compared with those in the sciences, making a change in the language of instruction less welcomed.
Second, communication in different disciplines varies largely according to a discipline’s educational objectives.
For example, some subjects emphasize their contribution to the international academic community, which makes English a practical choice as the language of instruction. However, some subjects are more concerned about their connection to local society, and thus using English might not be an immediate need.
This difference in communication goals across disciplines may touch on a more important question: Is EMI necessary for all?
Imagine the nation’s future veterinarians and nurses struggling to communicate with farmers and patients because of their English-only training.
This example might seem extreme, but it could become a reality if EMI is uncritically accepted.
The promotion of EMI may differ across disciplines, depending on the respective knowledge structures and educational objectives. However, as residents of various nation-states and disciplines continue to interact and cross boundaries in the era of globalization, this does not simply mean that EMI should be advocated for some subjects and restricted from others.
There is no doubt that globalization is changing the relationship between language and learning, but as a contested concept, EMI also requires policymakers, both at the national and institutional levels, to firmly ground their decisions in additional classroom-based research.
To make the implementation of EMI pedagogically and socially just, the role of English across disciplines should be carefully explored and defined.
More specifically, within the overarching discourse of internationalization, how English enhances or constrains the effectiveness of teaching and learning must be understood.
It is time to move Taiwanese discussions on EMI beyond one with a sociopolitical focus on institutional ranking and branding to one that considers the more fundamental concerns of education.
Cindy Chang is a doctoral candidate at the University of Cambridge’s Faculty of Education.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
After “Operation Absolute Resolve” to capture former Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, the US joined Israel on Saturday last week in launching “Operation Epic Fury” to remove Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his theocratic regime leadership team. The two blitzes are widely believed to be a prelude to US President Donald Trump changing the geopolitical landscape in the Indo-Pacific region, targeting China’s rise. In the National Security Strategic report released in December last year, the Trump administration made it clear that the US would focus on “restoring American pre-eminence in the Western hemisphere,” and “competing with China economically and militarily
RSS