IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019

Internationalization and English as a Medium of Instruction in Mongolian
Higher Education
Sainbayar Gundsambuu
Osaka University, Japan
National University of Mongolia, Mongolia

71

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019

Abstract
In the growing global trend of internationalization, Mongolian universities plan to increase
courses and programs in English in order to improve their competitiveness and ultimately to
become internationally visible, at least in Asia. This study discusses the current process ofinternationalization at Mongolian universities and explores the rationales of implementing
English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) at Mongolian universities. The analysis focuses on
how the top-down national-level policies to internationalize the higher education sector
influence both national and private universities, and what drives universities to adopt EMI
policies. This paper intends to answer these questions through document analysis and an
online survey at two private universities in Mongolia. Forty faculty members participated in
the survey. All data went through the qualitative document analysis, “describing, classifying
and connecting” (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996) to portray a comprehensive picture of theinternationalization of higher education and the concept of EMI in Mongolia. The findings
revealed that the Mongolian government is the key player in internationalization at thenational level by making policies, taking initiatives, and encouraging national universities.
However, the process of internationalization is much slower at private universities. The two
private universities in Mongolia implement EMI for the following four reasons, 1) increasing
the employability of domestic graduates, 2) promotion of international collaboration, 3)
generating more income, and 4) increasing domestic and international profile. The faculty
members of the two leading private universities understood that the introduction of EMI attheir universities aimed to equip their graduates with English language skills to operate
globally and to improve their universities’ international profile.
Keywords: English as a medium of instruction, faculty development, international
collaboration, internationalization of higher education

72

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019

Introduction
Internationalization of higher education (IoHE) is not a homogeneous concept but more of a
global concept of interrelated dimensions (Hudzik, 2015). Moreover, there is no agreed-upondefinition for IoHE. IoHE has many aspects including organized cross-border mobility ofstudents and faculty, foreign language learning, internationalization of curricula, cross-border
institutional partnerships in joint research, joint degrees, and branch campuses. Early on,
Soderqvist (2002) defined IoHE asa change process from a national higher education institution to aninternational higher education institution leading to the inclusion of aninternational dimension in all aspects of its holistic management in order toenhance the quality of teaching and learning and to achieve the desiredcompetencies (p.29).
However, the most widely used definition is the one put forth by Knight (2003),“Internationalization is the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global
dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education” (p.2).
According to Knight (2004), IoHE has two main spheres of action, “internationalization athome” and “internationalization abroad”. “Internationalization at home” applies strategies
and approaches designed to utilize an international dimension into the home campus by
including global and comparative perspectives in the curriculum or recruiting international
students, scholars, and faculty and leveraging their presence on campus. “Internationalization
abroad” encourages an institution to send students to study abroad, set up a branch campus
overseas, or engage in an inter-institutional partnership (Altbach, Reisberg, & Rumbley,2009).
Rationales for Internationalization
Rationales for internationalization (Knight & de Wit, 1997; Knight, 2003, and de Wit, 2000)
are categorized into four groups; academic, social/cultural, political, and economic.
According to Knight & de Wit (1997), rationales can be described as motivations forinternationalization and different rationales imply different means and end tointernationalization (de Wit, 2000). In addition to the four categories, Knight (2004) added a
new category, “branding” and developing an international reputation, particularly throughrankings.
Political rationales for internationalization are rooted in the development process of nationstates, and the dominance of European models of higher education in colonies in theAmericas, Africa, and Asia (de Wit, 2000). This political rationale was changed when the
United States of America gained international power after the Second World War.
Universities in the United States started to develop area studies, foreign language training,and study abroad when federal funding supported them. To maintain and expand its
influence, America expanded educational and international exchanges (for example,
Fulbright). As de Wit (2000) emphasized, the political rationale after the Cold War changed
from the political to the economic.
Economic rationales for internationalization have been the driving force for cooperation andexchange in research, technology, and education development programs (de Wit 2000).
Economic rationales are pursued due to the increasing global labour force, joint international
research and development projects for international competency, and marketing of higher

73

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019education on the international market. As Wächter (1999) noted, universities around theworld compete to strengthen their income base through the provision of education services toforeign customers. Anglophone countries like the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, and the United States of America gain more advantage in it. In addition, thesecountries gain more experience in international marketing strategies to recruit international
students through national organizations such as Australia’s International Development
Program, the Institute of International Education in the USA, and the New Zealand Education
Trust. However, other countries focus on international activities such as the opening of
distance education programs (van der Wende, 1997) and creation of offshore campuses toattract international students in order to find alternative sources of income (Wächter, 1999).
As for cultural and social rationales, national cultural identity, intercultural understanding,citizenship development, and social and community development are considered (Knight,
2004). These rationales place more emphasis on understanding foreign languages andcultures, on preserving the national culture, and on respecting diversity throughinternationalization.
According to Knight (2004), academic rationales focus on the integration of an international
dimension into research, teaching and academic standards, institution building, andenhancement of the institution’s profile, status, and quality. According to Qiang (2003), there
is an assumption that integrating the international dimension into teaching, research, andservice enhances the quality of a higher education system. The notion of enhancing thequality of education is linked to the idea that internationalization serves as a positive change
for institutional building.
Higher education institutions (HEIs) are giving high importance to branding for a strong
international reputation (Knight, 2004). Institutions and companies are competing for themarket of recruitment of international fee-paying students, offering for-profit education andprograms, selling education services like language testing and accreditation. For branding,institutions strive for accreditation from national and international accreditation bodies.
Education providers strive for creating an international reputation and name brand for theirown institution to place the institution in a higher position for competitive advantage (Knight,
2004).
To clarify the categories of the five rationales above, Knight (2004) distinguished therationales between the national and institutional level. At the national level, rationales thatdrive internationalization in higher education include human resource development, strategic
alliances, commercial trade, nation building, and social/structural development, while
institutional-level rationales cover international profile and reputation, student and staff
development, income generation, strategic alliances, and research and knowledge production(see Knight, 2004).
In her study, Knight (2003) distinguished institutional rationales for internationalization at
the institutional level (See Table 1). Here, Knight (2003) listed the rationales by the level ofimportance and emphasized that the top four rationales relate to the academic rationales while
the rest relate more to the economic, political, and social/cultural aspects ofinternationalization.

74

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019

Table 1: Rationales for internationalization at the international level
Institutional Level Rationales for Internationalization
Mobility and Exchanges for Students
7International and Interculturaland Teachers
Understanding
2
Teaching and Research Collaboration
8
Promotion and Profile of Institution
3
Academic Standards and Quality
9
Diversify Source of Faculty andStudents
4
Research Projects
10 Regional Issues and Integration
5
Co-operation and Development
11 International Student Recruitment
Assistance6
Curriculum Development
12 Diversify Income Generation
Source: Knight (2003)
1

For this study, it is important to understand the rationales for internationalization as one of
the reasons or motivations for internationalization includes the implementation of EMI. Thus,
this study will examine the rationales for implementing EMI from the perspectives of staff
and faculty members of private universities through an online survey to determine therationales and policies for adoption of EMI at the institutional level.
English as a Medium of Instruction
IoHE has become a priority for many education systems in many countries where English is
not the national language. This is closely connected to the use of English (Yonezawa &Shimmi, 2015). One of the reasons for this is that, as a lingua franca, the use of English
represents how non-Anglophone countries try to enter the competitive arena of global higher
education and the economic marketplace (Stigger, 2018, p.4). As Coleman (2006) claimed,
the reasons for the HEIs to introduce programs and courses taught through EMI are split into
seven categories: content and language integrated learning, internationalization, student
exchanges, teaching and research materials, staff mobility, graduate employability, and themarket for international students. In other words, foreign language learning in itself is not thereason why institutions adopt EMI.
EMI is one trend in IoHE across many non-Anglophone countries as countries shift fromtheir focus from teaching English to teaching academic subjects in English (Graddol, 1997;
Deaden, 2014). EMI is defined as “The use of the English language to teach academic
subjects in countries or jurisdictions where the first language of the majority of the
population is not English” (Dearden, 2015; p.2). EMI is a growing global phenomenon in allphases of higher education, and more and more universities are in a rush to offer both
graduate and undergraduate programs through EMI (Macaro et al., 2018). By offeringcourses in English, an institution is able to attract international students and faculty members,
and this brings opportunities for its own students and teachers to participate in international
scientific research (Graddol, 1997).
Higher Education System in Mongolia
Before reviewing the process of IoHE and the concept of EMI, it is important to understandthe higher education system of the country. Thus, a brief introduction to the higher education
system in Mongolia is provided.

75

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019

Mongolia is a landlocked country with 1.5 million square kilometers of land area, a total
population of 3.1 million and a gross domestic product per capita of $7,800 as of 2016
(Mongolian Statistical Information Service, 2016). The total number of students studying at
tertiary school amounted to 157,138 (58% female) in the academic year of 2016-2017. As of
2017, 95 HEIs, including a high percentage of private institutions (78%), national (18%), anda small percentage of branch schools of foreign universities (4%), are operating in Mongolia(Ministry of Education, Culture, Sciences, and Sports, 2017a). The branch schools of foreign
universities include three from the Russian Federation and one from Singapore.
The history of Mongolian higher education is rooted in the National University of Mongolia,
which was established in 1942 with three faculties: medical, pedagogical, and veterinary(Gantsog & Altantsetseg, 2003). Since then, several faculties were developed: physics,
mathematics, natural sciences, social sciences, economics, law, and languages and literature.
After Mongolia transferred to a free market economy system in the 1990s, the government
ceased most of its funding for national universities, only covering utility costs. This resulted
in the introduction of a student fee structure in 1993 (Gantsog & Altantsetseg, 2003).
Moreover, the government of Mongolia made a policy of “cost sharing” to shift a greater
portion of the burden of payment to individuals and transfer public expenditure on education
to student loans. The government also legalized the establishment of private universities andbranch schools of foreign HEIs.
Literature Review
The literature review explores the process of IoHE at both national and institutional levels
and the concept of EMI in Mongolia.
Internationalization of Higher Education
Despite a handful of studies that discussed the early internationalization initiatives in
Mongolia, little is known of current strategies and activities towards internationalization at
national and institutional levels. Previous studies focused on the impact of globalization onhigher education (Gantsog & Altantsetseg, 2003; Sodnomtseren, 2006), educational
expansion in higher education (Agvaantseren & Hoon, 2013), or a strategy forinternationalization in one national institution (Jargalmaa, 2015).
At the national level, the Mongolian Sustainable Development Vision 2030, enacted by the
Mongolian Parliament in 2016, set an ambitious goal to have at least four Mongolian national
universities recognized internationally for research in STEM fields. It indicated,
Build a science and technology cluster and park in accordance with priority
development areas, and ensure that no less than four Mongolian universities
are ranked among Asian top universities (Partnership for Action on Green
Economy, 2017, p.28).
Although there is no assessment information of Mongolian HEIs in the popular ranking
systems, such as Times Higher Education’s World University Rankings, Academic Rankingof World Universities, and QS World University Rankings, Mongolian national universities
are focusing more on research and publications. As Hu (2017) reports, the proportion of
online scientific papers from Mongolia reached 315 in 2016 but dropped to 252 in 2017. Thisshows that the number of papers produced per year remains low and there is much to do to
produce more papers. Hence, two measures are urgent. The government needs to add more

76

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019budget for research and development, and national universities should offer more reward toprominent faculties and researchers.
Mongolian HEIs are also changing their fundamental missions, hoping to become
international universities. According to Altbach, Reisberg, and Rumbley (2009), at theinstitutional level, a large number of universities around the world aim to produce “global
citizens” with “global competencies” by adopting extended missions underinternationalization. Mission statements of a number of Mongolian HEIs highlighted thatthey aim to become “global”, that is, an internationally recognized university. Table 2
compares excerpts of mission statements from several major national and private HEIs that
aim to become research-oriented and leading institutions in Asia and the world.
Table 2: Comparison of HEIs mission statements
Type

Name

Excerpt from Mission Statements

1

National

National University ofMongolia

2

National

National University of
Medical Sciences

3

National

4

National

5

National

6

Private7

Private8

Private9

PrivateNational University ofLife Sciences
Mongolian University of
Science and Technology
National University of
Education
Ikh Zasag International
University
University of the
Humanities
University of Financeand Economics
Otgontenger University“…to become a national model research university whichmeets world standards* and provides pillars for
Mongolia’s development.”“…to become a national leading and one of top 100
medical universities* in the west coastal area of the
Pacific Ocean.”“…to become a leading global university*…”10

Private11

Private12

PrivateMongolia International
University
Mongolian Royal
AcademyMongolian National
University“…to become one of Asia’s top universities*.”“…to become a competitive institution* among Asianuniversities of education.”“…be a modern global university* of technology andinnovation.”“…to become a reputable and leading university inAsia*… ”“…to become a leading research university* recognizedin the region…”“…to become a research university that satisfies
international standards…”“…to educate and develop leaders in Mongolia andthroughout Central Asia*...”“…to be a university that provides world-classeducation*…”“…to become a university that leads in Mongolia, Asia,
and Europe through research and teaching*.”

Source: Websites of each institution (translated by the author) *Emphasis is made by theauthorMission statements show that becoming recognized in the region, improving research,technology, and innovation, and integrating into international standards are the main goals set
by these universities.
Within the initiatives and policies of IoHE, the government of Mongolia, in cooperation with
its national universities, strives to build a comprehensive university campus outside thecapital city, Ulaanbaatar (Government of Mongolia, 2010a). The goal of the policy is tointegrate the national educational system into international dimensions and support thetransformation of national and private universities to a campus model. The government of77

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019

Mongolia believes that building up a comprehensive campus will lay a solid infrastructurebase for adapting the national universities’ strategic development goals and improving
teaching and research quality. The comprehensive campus development plan will also allow
the integration of educational resources among the national universities. In addition, national
universities will be able to share resources, develop interdisciplinary research, and pursue acoordinated external relations strategy.
With the goal to improve the quality of higher education through internationalization, thegovernment merged national universities from 42 to 16 in 2010 (Government of Mongolia,
2010b). The private HEIs also started to merge voluntarily following the government policy.
The number of private institutions, which amounted to 129 in 2004, reduced to 79 in 2014
and subsequently to 74 in 2017. Another example is the policy on curriculum. The
government passed an order to follow the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization’s International Standard Classification of Education. Accordingly, 817 fields ofstudies were reduced to 181 in 2014 (MES, 2014).
In addition, external assessment and accreditation have become necessary to improve thequality and status of higher education in Mongolia. Currently, 74 universities qualified fornational accreditation (Mongolian National Council for Education Accreditation, 2017). The
accreditation of HEIs was voluntary-based until 2016 when the government made it
mandatory for all types of HEIs to undergo accreditation (Legal Info System, 2017). In recent
years, international accreditation started to play an important role in Mongolia. The
Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs has accredited 13 institutions andis processing 8 more, while the Accreditation Agency for Degree Programs in Engineering,
Informatics, Natural Sciences, and Mathematics has accredited several programs at national
universities.
English as a Medium of Instruction in Mongolia
The Mongolian education system had the policy to teach only Russian as a foreign language
when the country had close ties with the former Soviet Union. During the socialist period, it
was mandatory for all students, regardless of their fields, to learn Russian for 3-4 years
continuously and take a state examination in Russian. This was changed when the English
language department opened at the National University of Mongolia in 1956. In the 1990s,
when Mongolia expanded its foreign relations with other countries, it needed more
professionals who were able to communicate in English. Therefore, more HEIs started tooffer English courses. However, there were not enough English language teachers. In 19901995, with the support from United Nations Development Program and Overseas
Development Administration-British Overseas Development Agency, a specialized English
language institute was founded to retrain hundreds of Russian language teachers as English
language teachers (Altan-Od & Khongorzul, 2012).
English is not the second official foreign language in Mongolia. However, the documents on
the English language in the past two decades show that English is treated as the second main
foreign language of Mongolia. In 1997, the Minister of Enlightenment (Ministry of
Enlightenment, 1997) passed an order to teach English as a foreign language from theacademic year of 1997-1998 in all levels of education institutions. Later, the order by the
MECS (2006) indicated that the main foreign language in bachelor’s level programs would
be English.

78

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019

The term, EMI, was first used officially in the Comprehensive National Development
Strategy of Mongolia, which was based on the Millennium Development Goals (World Bank,
2008). The strategic objective 2 in Education Development Policy indicates the government
will “…provide financial support to high schools, vocational schools, and universities which
use English as the medium of instruction” (World Bank, 2008, p. 19). Moreover, thisdocument addressed the importance of English, pointed out the goal of making the English
language a major foreign language in Mongolia, and set a goal to have civil servants becompetent in English by 2021. Prior to this official document, in its resolution on English
language education, the government of Mongolia (2001) announced the need to teach EMI
courses such as international relations, economics, journalism, tourism, medicine, andtechnology. The National Program on English Education (Government of Mongolia, 2008)highlighted the importance of “creat[ing] a system/mechanism pushing the need and use ofEnglish as the main tool for education, for communication, information access, andbusiness…” (p.5).
Despite a handful of private universities, opportunities to earn academic degrees in English
are limited. Examples include the Mongolia International University that has offeredundergraduate degree programs entirely in English since its establishment in 2002. Anotherinstitution is the Royal International University, which opened its doors offering business
degree programs entirely in English in 2010. At the graduate level, opportunities to gain
degrees in English are available in joint and dual degree programs (mostly Master’s degree)at major national and private universities.
Based on the literature review, this study explores the driving factors of internationalization.
In addition, rationales of EMI in HEIs are discovered through an online survey for faculty
members at two private universities. Therefore, the study attempts to answer two researchquestions before the discussion and conclusion:
1. What are the driving factors of Mongolian higher education institutions to pursue
internationalization?
2. What are the rationales of Mongolian universities to adopt policies for English as a
Medium of Instruction?
Methodology
The study draws on Knight’s (2004) model of IoHE, “internationalization abroad andinternationalization at home” and Soderqvist’s (2000) concept of internationalization as apathway to increase quality and competencies of higher education institutions as an
overarching framework to explore IoHE in Mongolia. All data related to Mongolian higher
education, reforms, internationalization policy, and English language policy went through thequalitative document analysis, “describing, classifying and connecting” (Coffey andAtkinson, 1996; p.8) to portray a comprehensive picture of the IoHE and the concept of EMI
in Mongolia.
Document Analysis
Following the qualitative document analysis methods (Coffey and Atkinson, 1996), an arrayof documents was collected from public and academic sources. The collected documents
covered policy documents related to Mongolian higher education since the 1990s, including:• higher education laws, government orders, amendments, and legislation;

79

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019• websites of 10 national universities and 18 private institutions (as of 2017);• official reports by the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, and Open Society
Institute;• selected online newspaper articles at three main newspapers (Daily News, Unuudur,
and Zuunii Medee);• articles written in both Mongolian and English.
Most documents were available in Mongolian, which was not an issue as the author of thispaper was born in Mongolia. In addition, the researcher used his insider perspectives working
in the higher education sector in Mongolia in the last 14 years. However, it should be notedthat the collected documents lacked recent studies and articles related to the topic in thisstudy.
First, the collected documents were read closely to apply topic codes. These topic codes
described the main segments of the documents. During the qualitative document analysis, theemphasis was given to official evidence relating to the strategies and approaches forinternationalization and EMI policy at the national level. After completing the initial coding
process, the coded data were reviewed again and coded segments that reflected similar
concepts were grouped into larger categories. After all coded data had been categorized, thecategories were reexamined to identify major themes in a relationship with the IoHE in the
Mongolian context and the questions of the study. As a result, six dimensions were identified,
three of which are presented in this report due to their coverage.
Documents from 28 national and private universities were collected to understand their EMI
policies and the implication of EMI in their strategic plans, mission statements, and public
identity. It should be noted that there is little available data on EMI in Mongolia. The author
has estimated that there are about 385 courses taught in English, identified through his privatecontacts with the 28 universities’ academic affairs offices. However, it was not possible toidentify the exact number of degree programs and courses in English in the Mongolian HEIs.
The reasons include unresponsiveness when reaching out to the universities’ academic affairs
offices and inaccessibility of information from the university websites.
Online Survey
Based on documentary evidence, an online survey was conducted with faculty members whoteach EMI courses at two leading private universities in Mongolia. The survey was developed
based on the objectives and the related literature, and the survey was conducted at the two
universities in Ulaanbaatar, the capital of Mongolia. Purposive sampling (Patton, 2002) wasused to select these universities. As Patton (1990) emphasized, purposeful sampling lies inselecting information-rich cases for study in depth. From the information-rich cases, one canlearn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the research. From the
17 strategies for purposefully selecting information-rich cases by Patton (1990), the third
strategy, maximum variation sampling was used to select the two universities for the survey.
This strategy aims at capturing and describing the central theme or principal outcomes thatcut across a great deal of participants or program variation. Moreover, document analysis
revealed that these two universities have more EMI degree programs than other private
universities. National universities were excluded due to this reason.
The survey aimed to analyze the rationales for adopting the EMI policy and examine its
implementation in two private universities. To provide rich data about the implementation ofEMI, the survey targeted the two private universities that EMI earlier and have implemented

80

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019it most aggressively among Mongolian HEIs. The survey was originally distributed to 25
faculty members in University A and 30 faculty members in University B. Twenty faculty
members from each university who are teaching EMI courses participated in the survey (seeTable 3).
Table 3: Demographic characteristics of the respondents-

Characteristics
Faculty members qualification
Doctoral degree
Doctoral candidates
Master’s Degree-

Teaching experience
Below 3 years
Above 3 years
5 years and more
10 years and more

Number
40
8
11
21
12
6
6
16

The survey had 18 questions: five questions on respondents’ personal information such as
history/experience of teaching courses in English, the experience of teaching overseas, sevenyes-no and multiple-choice questions; four five-level Likert-scale; and two open-ended
questions. The online questionnaires that were designed in English in the google forms weresent to the faculty members in January 2018. The questionnaire was closed in February 2018.
The gender of the survey respondents was 25 females and 15 males. The majority of the
respondents’ nationality was Mongolian (24 faculty members) while the rest were American(5), Bangladeshi (2), Korean (7), and Chinese (2). To ensure that respondents in the survey
provided honest answers, the survey was conducted anonymously and it did not request
names and other private information that may reveal their identities.
Data Results
Main Dimensions of Internationalization
The document analysis identified six main dimensions of the internationalization process at
HEIs: (1) Administrative leadership and structure; (2) Faculty development; (3)Internationalized curriculum development; (4) Student mobility; (5) Distance Education’ and(6) International partnership and collaboration. This section explores three dimensions (2, 4,
and 6) in the internationalization processes of Mongolian HEIs in global and local contexts,
their actions and strategies, and underlying motivations.
Faculty Development
The role of faculty members is vital in the institutional internationalization process. Hiring
new faculty members or re-training existing faculty members is central to the success ofapproaches to internationalization and maintenance of quality standards. The Mongolian
government action plan of 2008-2012 (Legal Info System, 2018, p. 5) indicated in the section
under education, “…faculty development program will be implemented in HEIs”, and“…Young researchers and scholars will be supported” in order to improve higher education
quality. In addition, the Roadmap for Higher Education Reform sets goals for faculty
development for 2010-2021 to increase the number of higher education faculty members witha PhD by at least 50 per cent (MECSS, 2017b). Currently, 2034 of 6917 (29%) full-time
faculty members have a PhD (MECSS, 2017a).

81

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019

Since the 1990s, faculties in HEIs had scarce opportunities and resources to develop theirskills and knowledge. Although international philanthropic organizations such as the OpenSociety Institute offered short-term exchange programs for faculties across all HEIs, faculties
still lacked language skills to benefit from international training. However, this is changing
and national universities are now focusing more on faculty development in order to increase
their quality and visibility.
According to the categories of faculty development developed by Fink (2013, p. 2), Mongolia
belongs to the first level of faculty development, “little or no faculty development activity”.
Main national universities are striving to offer more faculty development opportunities, thus,
aiming for the second level, and “a substantial minority of institutions offering faculty
development activity where participation is voluntary” Fink (2013, p. 2).
Despite these initiatives, the majority of HEIs still do not have a comprehensive plan forfaculty development and faculty members spend little time for self-development due to aheavy workload (Narankhuu & Batkhishig, 2015). As Itgel, Oyungoo, Sumyasuren & OtgonErdene, (2018) concluded in their study, most of the faculty members (67%) at national
universities viewed developing academic research and foreign language skills as the top
priority in faculty development. This means that faculty members feel disadvantaged inparticipating in and conducting high-quality academic research in a foreign language, mainly
in English.
Student Mobility
Mongolia hosted 1,520 inbound international students in 2017 (MECSS, 2017a). Of these,
56% were studying at the bachelor’s level, 33% at the master’s level and 11% at the PhD
level. The geographical origin of incoming students reveals that the largest number ofstudents are from China (969), Russia (182), and South Korea (132), representing 84% of allinternational students. Compared to the last five years, the number of international students
increased by 0.7% (It was 1,098 in 2012) (MECSS, 2017a). In addition, the “EBI”
government-funded short-term scholarship (initiated by the former President Elbegdorj in2017) encourages inbound student mobility. The purpose of the program is to support foreign
young researchers and scholars conducting research in Mongolian studies. Currently, nineresearchers from eight countries received this scholarship in 2017 (Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, 2017).
In regards to outgoing mobility, the government of Mongolia promotes study abroad
programs with the aim to prepare domestic students for international careers and develop
future high-level human resources. In 2014, the government commenced the Higher
Engineering Education Development Project in cooperation with the Japan International
Cooperation Agency to prepare 1,000 Mongolian engineering students in Japan by 2023.
Currently, 400 students, faculty members, and researchers have received the scholarship(Munkhtulga, 2018). Between 1997 and 2017, 2,076 students received Mongolian
government and intergovernmental scholarships.
The number of outbound Mongolian students has been stable during the past decade, with
only some minor fluctuations. The most popular destination countries included the UnitedStates of America, China, Russia, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. Numerous foreign governmentfunded scholarships have a great impact on the outbound mobility of Mongolian students.

82

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019

The popular scholarships are from the United States of America, Japan, China, the United
Kingdom, Australia, Russia, Germany, Hungary, and South Korea.
International Partnership and Collaboration
For HEIs worldwide, building relationships with counterparts abroad is seen as a key aspectof strategies for internationalization. A great number of HEIs around the world are eager toestablish joint and dual degree programs and other types of partnerships with foreign
institutions (especially in highly developed countries).
With regard to internationalization abroad, Mongolian HEIs experience international
partnership and collaboration in two ways: joint/dual degree programs including student
exchanges and research and academic collaboration. The foreign partner schools in Asia,
especially from Japan, South Korea, China, and Taiwan weigh higher than other regions.
Examples show that 146 of 220 foreign partners with National University of Mongolia arefrom Asia, 83 of 137 at Mongolian University of Science and Technology, 47 of 70 at
National University of Education and the list goes on. Student exchange programs are fundedby an array of institutions from private companies (e.g. Mitsubishi Scholarship) and national
institutions (e.g. Mongolia-Namyangju Education Promotion Scholarship) to the government(e.g. Erasmus Mundus program).
Dual degree programs have become attractive for students interested in getting aninternational degree but have limited resources to complete full four years abroad. Thus,
institutions offer such programs to attract more students, which require increased English
language exposure, training, and quality in order to prepare students for partner institutions.
In Mongolia, joint and dual degree programs mostly in business studies have been
experiencing considerable growth over the past decade. About 40 joint/dual degree programs
were offered at national universities as of 2017. Most of the programs are taught in English;
thus, it requires students to have advanced English skills. The tuition fee for these programs
is much higher, compared to the domestic average.
Research and academic collaboration is an excellent way to not only accelerate theinternationalization progress, but also enhance the institutional quality and improve theperformance of partners. HEIs in Mongolia benefit from participating in effective research
and academic collaborations with others, both within and outside the country. In 1974-2016,
the government of Mongolia funded 4235 research projects (23.5% in natural science, 23.5%
in technology, 22.8% in medical science, 17.8% in social science, and 12.4% in agriculturalscience) (MFST, 2016). However, joint projects make up a small percentage – 18% in social
science, 12% in natural science, 2% in medical science, 2% in the agriculture, and 2% intechnology. In 2016, $3.1 million was allotted to HEIs for 164 research projects (MFST,
2016). Unfortunately, Mongolian HEIs have not yet released any accurate data regarding
their academic collaboration with foreign institutions.
Online Survey
The main aim of the survey was to analyze the EMI practice in two private universities and toinvestigate internal and external factors that influence the adoption of EMI policy at theinstitutional level from the perspectives of faculty members. This survey involved two
institutions that started offering EMI courses earlier, in a more extensive way, andimplementing EMI more aggressively than other Mongolian universities (see Table 4).

83

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019

To interpret the survey results, I explored documents related to EMI courses and programs,
including materials from each university’s website. The survey asked faculty members about
their students, internal and external factors for implementing EMI practice at their university,
challenges, and recommendations and suggestions for the improvement and efficacy of EMI
courses.
Table 4: Profile of the universities
Basic information
Type of institution

University A
PrivateUniversity B
PrivateApprox. # of undergraduate students

4000

1000

Approx. total # of international undergraduate students

70

150

12 (programs)

13 (programs)# of undergraduate EMI

What are the internal and external factors for implementing EMI programs? Thissection explored the internal and external factors for implementing EMI courses at the two
universities (see Table 5). The participants were asked to rank the three most importantinternal and external factors. In regards to internal factors, the majority of the universities’
faculty members perceive that EMI programs are offered in order to improve their students’English proficiency and to prepare global citizens. This idea is connected to the notion of
preparing global leaders who can be actively engaged in international activities throughEnglish. Faculties at University A ranked “Increase the ranking of the university” as one of
the main factors driving EMI policy while University B chose “Create an international
environment for the students”.
Table 5: Comparison of internal and external factors
University A
Improve English skills of domestic
students (20)*Prepare global citizens (18)*Internal Factors

External Factors

Increase the ranking of theuniversity (18)*Student exchange programs (20)*International collaborations (20)*Domestic university ranking (18)*

University B
Improve English skills ofdomestic students (20)*Create an international
environment for students (20)*Prepare global citizens (20)*Student exchange programs (20)*International collaborations (20)*Domestic university ranking (20)** Number of faculty members agreed
As for external factors, all respondents from both University A and University B believe thatstudent exchange programs and international collaborations are the primary reasons for their
universities to implement EMI courses. This pattern confirms the result of the document
analysis that University A is actively engaged in international collaboration with foreign
partner universities through various exchange degree programs. For University B, it seems
the student exchange programs and international collaborations play a crucial role in theimplementation of EMI. In Mongolia, most of the student exchange programs in HEIs are run
in English, hence EMI is seen as one of the external factors in the development of student
exchange programs at these universities through international collaboration. Interestingly, the84

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019answers of the respondents of the two universities display that their universities place muchemphasis on English education to raise their domestic university ranking, which is the third
factor for implementing EMI.
Challenges. It is clear that there are many challenges that hinder successful implementationof EMI. To gain a better understanding of these challenges, respondents were asked to choose
the four most important challenges from the following key challenges.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Student dissatisfaction;
Limited English proficiency of students;
Outside pressure;
Structural challenge;
Cultural challenge;
Increase in workload;
Linguistic difficulties;
Intercultural problems.

Table 6 presents the list of challenges by the level of importance as determined by the
number of respondents who ranked the challenges as most important.
Table 6: Comparison of challenges
University A

University B

Increase in workload (16)*Linguistic difficulties (14)*Outside pressure (16)*Structural challenge (14)*Structural challenge (14)*Cultural challenge (14)*Linguistic difficulties (14)*Limited English proficiency of students (14)**Number of agreed respondents
The challenges that the faculty members from these universities selected are similar to resultsthat have been found by many researchers (see Airey, Lauridsen, Räsänen, Salö, & Schwack,
2015; Chapple 2015; He & Chiang, 2016; Doiz, Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2011; and Galloway,
Kriukow, & Numajiri, 2017).
Recommendations and Suggestions
The survey had two open-ended questions. The purpose was to find out more about faculty
experiences in EMI followed by a request to give their recommendations for those who aregoing to teach EMI courses, and universities that are planning to offer EMI courses. The
answers showed that University A’s faculty members focused more on the preparation ofclasses, pedagogical training, and language issues while University B’s faculty members gave
more emphasis on collaborative ties between departments, and practical advice of whatchanges and challenges to expect.
In terms of recommendations for universities, University A’s faculty members advised that auniversity planning to offer EMI courses should provide their teachers with pedagogicaltraining, course materials, and a good working environment. University B’s faculty members
recommended pedagogical training for faculty members, preparation of quality curriculums,
and emphasis on English language proficiency of prospective students. It seems that85

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019

pedagogical training or a workshop is important to the faculty members in order to work
successfully in the EMI context and as well as the curricula along with course materials.
Discussion and Conclusion
This study attempted to explore the IoHE in Mongolia, current strategies and approaches tointernationalization at the national and institutional levels, the concept of EMI policy and its
implementation in HEIs in Mongolia. This study addressed two research questions:
1. What are the driving factors for Mongolian higher education institutions to pursue
internationalization?
2. What are the rationales of Mongolian universities to adopt policies for English as a
Medium of Instruction?
In terms of the first question, the key findings of this research show that at the national level,
the world university ranking causes the government to push its national universities to pursue
internationalization. In the bigger picture, the Mongolian government perceives the IoHE as away to integrate international dimensions into higher education (Knight, 2003) in order toimprove the quality of higher education (Soderqvist, 2002). These two reasons are the key
drivers of internationalization.
At the institutional level, national universities put a greater emphasis on rankings, research
output to journals with high impact factor, international collaboration and delivery of courses
in English. On the other hand, private institutions are increasingly applying for international
accreditations to compete for high-tuition paying domestic students. These two phenomena
are moving the IoHE in Mongolia forward by integrating international dimensions into higher
education.
Although the government of Mongolia makes progress through strategic actions and projects
in the higher education sector, Mongolia’s internationalization efforts are still dispersed andmanaged in an ad-hoc fashion. At the national level, higher education policies and laws are
not stable and they are constantly changed. Consequently, the internationalization process is
becoming slow. As expected in the Roadmap for Higher Education Reform 2010-2021(MECS, 2010), Mongolia’s first ambitious priority is to have four universities to beinternationally visible at least in Asia by 2021. However, the plan is way behind the schedule.
The Mongolian government should consider actions to intensify faculty development on asubstantial scale for the development of scientific research in the country. The government
should also grant full autonomy to national universities and increase its investment in thecoordination of international initiatives. The document analysis of the discourse of IoHE in
Mongolia presented the following key challenges:● Institutional autonomy and short-term leadership. When the government of Mongolia
appoints rectors for limited terms, national universities face difficulties withautonomy and short-term leadership to maintain the continuity of vision forinternationalization and sustaining strategic actions over extended periods.
● Insufficient funding. Funding and grants are unstable and insufficient for theinternationalization process to go forward. This surely relies on the country’s
economic capacity and it will likely have long-term consequences for Mongolia’sinternationalization agenda and outcomes.

86

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019● Quality assurance. Before 2016, HEIs were not required to go for accreditation. The
only incentive for it was the government’s financial support in the form of student
loans only to accredited HEIs. The negative results of not being accredited may
include a loss of funding, students, and even bankruptcy. Now there is a hope that the
mandatory accreditation will benefit all HEIs and their stakeholders.
The Mongolian government is the key player in IoHE by making policies, taking initiatives,and encouraging national universities. However, the process of internationalization is muchslower in private HEIs. More in-depth research and particularly qualitative research of acomparative nature are clearly needed in order to gain greater insights into how the IoHE is
implemented at national and institutional levels.
In terms of the second research question, it is clear that more private rather than national
institutions utilize the forms of international delivery through joint and dual degree programs
as Deschamps and Lee (2015) claimed. The forms of joint and dual degree programs in
Mongolia support Mongolian domestic students to study abroad rather than calling forinternational students. The medium of instruction in the courses offered in the joint and dual
degree programs is mainly English. The country will remain disadvantaged if the number ofprograms in English is not leveraged because this is crucial to many aspects ofinternationalization. While many foreign institutions implement EMI to attract international
students, this does not seem to be a practice at Mongolian HEIs.
As Macaro et al. (2018) concluded, the rationales for adopting EMI in a broader global
context include:
1. a perceived need to internationalize the university;
2. the need to attract foreign students due to the decreasing number of domestic students;
3. national cuts in HE investment;
4. the need for national HEIs to compete with private ones; and5. the importance of English in academic research publications.
By comparison, in terms of the second research question, in the Mongolian context, thedocument analysis identified that HEIs in Mongolia implement EMI for the following four
reasons:
1. increasing the employability of domestic graduates;
2. promoting international collaboration;
3. generating more income; and4. increasing domestic and international profile.
These four reasons are interrelated. When national universities strive to increase theirinternational profile by offering EMI courses and joint/dual degree programs in English,
private universities promote international collaboration via joint and dual degree EMI
programs to generate more income. Both national and private universities pay much attention
to the employment ratio of their graduates due to the increasing demands of international anddomestic business organizations to hire graduates who will be able to work internationally.
English language knowledge is one of the main requirements for employment. To someextent, the survey findings show similar results as the document analysis identified. The
faculty members of the two leading private institutions perceived that the introduction of EMI
at their universities intends to improve their graduates’ English language skills to operate

87

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019globally as well as to sharpen their university’s international profile. As noted, this survey
was conducted for the first time in the Mongolian context.
Due to time constraints, a more in-depth study including interviews with the faculty members
and administrators of EMI programs should be done to have a more complete view of the
EMI in Mongolia. In addition, a comparison of data from more private universities would
have been valuable.

88

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019

References
Agvaantseren, U., & Hoon, P. (2013). Comparative Korean and Mongolian achievement inhigher education. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research,
11(1), 49–55.
Airey, J., Lauridsen, K., Räsänen, A., Salö, L., & Schwach, V. (2015). The expansion ofEnglish-medium instruction in the Nordic countries: Can top-down university
language policies encourage bottom-up disciplinary literacy goals? Higher Education,
73(4), 561–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9950-2
Altan-Od, D., & Khongorzul, D. (2012). Language policy and language planning ofMongolia: Some issues on English language education policy. Bembi San.
Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2009). Trends in global higher education:
Tracking an academic revolution. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific andCultural Organization.
Chapple, J. (2015). Teaching in English is not necessarily the teaching of English.
International Education Studies, 8(3), 1–13.
Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementaryresearch strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Coleman, J. (2006). English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language
Teaching, 39(01), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480600320X
Dearden, J. (2015). English As a Medium of Instruction – A Growing Phenomenon.
Educational Review, 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013191610140107
Deschamps, E., & Lee, J. (2015). Internationalization as mergers and acquisitions: Seniorinternational officers’ entrepreneurial strategies and activities in public universities.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 19(2), 122–139.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315314538284
De Wit, H. (2000). Changing rationales for the internationalization of higher education.
Internationalization of Higher Education: An Institutional Perspective. 9–21.
https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.1999.15.6477
Doiz, A., Lasagabaster & Sierra. (2011). Internationalization, multilingualism and Englishmedium instruction. World Englishes, 30(3), 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467971X.2011.01718.x
Fink, L. (2013). The Current status of faculty development internationally. International
Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(2), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2013.070204
Galloway, G., Kriukow, K., & Numajiri, T. (2017). Internationalization, higher educationand the growing demand for English: An investigation into the English medium of
instruction (EMI). London: British Council.
Gantsog, T., & Altantsetseg, S. (2003). Globalization, WTO and Mongolian higher education.
New York: International Policy Fellowships, Open Society Institute.
Government of Mongolia. (2010a). Resolution on Ratification of Developing Universities
with Building Campuses. Retrieved from http://www.mecss.gov.mn/director-content312-317.mw [in Mongolian]89

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019

Government of Mongolia. (2010b). Resolution on Reforming of Some State Owned Higher
Education Institutions. Retrieved from http://www.mecss.gov.mn/director-content313-317.mw [in Mongolian]
Government of Mongolia. (2008). Resolution on Ratification of the National Program on
English Language Education. Retrieved from http://www.mecss.gov.mn/directorcontent-331-317.mw [in Mongolian]
Government of Mongolia. (2001). National Program on English Language Education.
Retrieved from http://www.legalinfo.mn/annex/details/1413?lawid=8227 [inMongolian]
Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English? A guide to forecasting the popularity of the
English language in the 21st century. London: The British Council.
He, J., & Chiang, S. (2016). Challenges to English-medium instruction (EMI) forinternational students in China: A learner’s perspective. English Today, 32(04), 63–67.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078416000390
Hu, T. (2017). Advancing research and innovation with Web of Science. International
Organization for Migration. Retrieved from https://news.num.edu.mn/wpcontent/uploads/2017/11/WOS-Night_2017.pdf
Jargalmaa, J. (2015). Internationalization of Mongolian higher education: with specialreference to the Mongolian National University. Kyoto: Kyoto University Graduate
School of Education, Education Practice Collaboration Center.
Knight, J. (2003). Updated internationalization definition. International Higher Education,
33, 2–3. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2003.33.7391
Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization Remodeled: Definition, Approaches, andRationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315303260832
Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (1997). Internationalization of Higher Education in Asia PacificCountries. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education.
Hudzik, J.K. (2015). Comprehensive internationalization: institutional pathways to success.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Itgel, M., Oyungoo, B., Sumyasuren, T., & Otgon-Erdene, X. (2018). Possibilities and ways
to support higher education faculty development. Retrieved fromhttp://zuvluguun.num.edu.mn/conf2018/Home/present/13 [in Mongolian]
Legal Info System. (2018). Mongolian Government Action Plan 2008–2012. Retrieved fromhttp://www.legalinfo.mn/annex/details/3295?lawid=6187 [in Mongolian]
Legal Info System. (2017). Approval of program. Retrieved fromhttp://www.legalinfo.mn/law/details/4992?lawid=4992 [in Mongolian]
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.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000350
Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sciences. (2010). Roadmap for higher education reform
2010–2021. Retrieved from http://www.mesc.gov.mn/article-398-435.mw [inMongolian]90

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019

Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sciences. (2006). Resolution # 481 on making anamendment in the standard module. Retrieved from http://www.mecss.gov.mn/ [inMongolian]
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sciences, and Sports. (2017a). Higher education statistics
2016-2017. Retrieved from http://www.mecss.gov.mn/data/1702/HSta1617st [inMongolian]
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sciences, and Sports. (2017b). Roadmap for higher education
reform 2010-2021. Retrieved from http://www.mecss.gov.mn/roadmap201021 [inMongolian]
Ministry of Education and Sciences. (2014). On approval of indexes for fields of education inundergraduate degree level. Retrieved from https://mecss.gov.mn/law/200/ [inMongolian]
Ministry of Enlightenment. (1997). Resolution # 208 on some measures for foreign language
training. Retrieved from http://www.mecss.gov.mn/ [in Mongolian]
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2017). “EBI” scholarship for foreign young Mongolists.
Retrieved from http://www.mfa.gov.mn/?p=40643 [in Mongolian]
Mongolian Foundation for Science and Technology. (2016). The 2016 year report. Retrieved
from http://www.stf.mn/
Mongolian National Council for Education Accreditation. (2017). Accredited institutions.
Retrieved from http//accmon.mn/accredited-institutions-final/
Mongolian Statistical Information Service. (2016). Statistical yearbook 2016. Retrieved fromhttp://www.en.nso.mn/index.php
Munkhtulga, B. (2018, November 15). Our students will be coming as specialized engineers
equipped with excellent Japanese and English, Daily News, 227, Ulaanbaatar. [inMongolian]
Narankhuu, L. and Batkhishig, I. (2015). To the Issues on higher education faculty
Development. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/ankhbilegluvsan/ss47550077 [in Mongolian]
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. (3rd ed.) London: Sage
Publications.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (pp.169–186). Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Partnership for Action on Green Economy. (2017). Mongolia sustainable development vision
2030. Retrieved from http://www.unpage.org/files/public/20160205_mongolia_sdv_2030.pdf
Qiang, Z. (2003). Internationalization of higher education: Towards a conceptual framework.
Policy Futures in Education, 1(2), 248–270. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2003.1.2.5
Soderqvist, M. (2002). Internationalization and its management at higher-education
institutions: Applying conceptual, content and discourse analysis. Helsinki, Finland:Helsinki School of Economics.
Sodnomtseren, A. (2006). The Impact of globalization: A case of Mongolian
universities. International Higher Education, (43).
https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2006.43.7899

91

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 7 – Issue 1 – Summer 2019

Stigger, E. (2018). Introduction: Internationalization in higher education. In E.Stigger, M.
Wang, D. Laurence, & A. Bordilovskaya (Eds). Internationalization within higher
education: Perspectives from Japan, (pp.1–19). SpringerBriefs in Education.
Singapore: Springer.
van der Wende, M. (1997). Missing links: The relationship between national policies forinternationalization and those for higher education in general. In T. Kalvermark & M.
van der Wende (Eds.), National policies for the internationalization of higher
education in Europe (pp. 10–31). Stockholm: Hogskoleverket Studies, National
Agency for Higher Education.
World Bank. (2008). The Millennium development goals-based comprehensive national
development strategy of Mongolia. Retrieved fromhttp://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTMONGOLIA/Resources/NDS_DRAFT_ENG.
pdf
Yonezawa, A., & Shimmi, Y. (2015). Transformation of university governance throughinternationalization: Challenges for top universities and government policies in Japan.
Higher Education, 70(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9863-0
Corresponding author: Sainbayar Gunsambuu
Contact email: sgundsam@fulbrightmail.org

92