IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Perceived Impact of EMI on Students’ Language Proficiency in
Vietnamese Tertiary EFL Contexts
Thi Hoai Thu Tran
Hue University of Foreign Languages
Vietnam
Rachel Burke
The University of Newcastle
Australia
John Mitchell O’Toole
The University of Newcastle
Australia

7

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Abstract
English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) has been widely adopted at the tertiary level in nonEnglish speaking countries and Vietnam is no exception. Vietnamese universities and theVietnamese government have anticipated significant linguistic benefits for student outcomesthrough the implementation of EMI. Using a mixed-methods design of surveys, interviews,
and focus groups with students and lecturers at six Vietnamese universities, this study
investigates lecturer and student perceptions of the impacts of EMI on students’ language
proficiency in Vietnam. The study indicates that both students and lecturers were optimistic
about students’ language improvement. This study recommends some implications forstudents, lecturers, and further research regarding EMI in the Vietnamese EFL context. Among
the recommendations to emerge from this study, assessment on students’ language ability
before they commence EMI courses and lecturers’ adequate language competence for EMI
programs should be considered.
Keywords: EMI, English language proficiency, EFL contexts, language skills, Vietnam

8

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, hereafter Vietnam, is a country in Southeast Asia where
Vietnamese, the national language, is the main medium of instruction in schools at all levelsof education. Meanwhile, English is used as a foreign language in limited situations such as forinternational communication, business purposes, or international education. English language
teaching in Vietnam has experienced various changes based on socio-political and economic
developments in different historical stages. However, since Doi Moi (Renovation), English has
consolidated its role as one of the most important foreign languages in globalization andinternationalization in Vietnam.
First introduced in Vietnam in the 1990s, English as a medium of instruction (EMI) has become
one of the country’s current English language teaching (ELT) trends. Considered to be the firstwritten policy document regarding the implementation of EMI, the Resolution on Higher
Education Reform Agenda (HE) issued in 2005 officially documents English as a tool to teachand learn other subjects at the tertiary level. Since then, the implementation of EMI has beenencouraged, but not compulsory, in Vietnamese tertiary EFL contexts as a response to
globalization. The Vietnamese government expects EMI courses to assist with equipping
Vietnamese graduate students with English language proficiency and academic expertisenecessary for studying, working, and communicating efficiently in global contexts (Tran,
Burke, & O’Toole, 2021). EMI has been implemented in some selected Vietnameseuniversities that meet the requirements set by the Ministry of Education and Training (e.g.,with regards to teaching staff, resources, and facilities). Vietnamese students have the right toenroll in an EMI program if they satisfy specific criteria, such as passing the national university
entrance examination and meeting the language requirements.
Literature Review
In recent years, the EMI approach has become a global phenomenon (Dearden, 2014;
Goodman, 2014; Kirkpatrick, 2011a; Lei & Hu, 2014; McKay, 2014; Othman & Saat, 2009;
Smala, 2009; Taguchi, 2014). Many researchers note that EMI has a significant role in thehigher education systems of Asian and European countries as a part of universities’ strategies
for internationalization as many universities - and indeed governments – see EMI as integral
to improving learners’ English language competence (Byun et al., 2011; Chapple, 2015; Le,2012; Wächter & Maiworm, 2014). However, the benefits of EMI to students’ language
competence are contested across cultures and nations. While some students believe that they
can improve their language ability through EMI courses (Tatzl, 2011; Wächter & Maiworm,
2014; Yeh, 2014), others find that EMI does not have any influence on their English proficiency(Lei & Hu, 2014). A study conducted by Collins (2010) with 1011 students and 117 instructors
in an English-medium university in Turkey reveals that students’ self-perceived low language
proficiency is the reason why “they feel disadvantaged during their college years (Collins,
2010, p.97). However, Collins (2010) also notes that EMI is a solution for non-English
speaking countries like Turkey “to survive in the international market” (p.97). Lecturers andstudents in his study perceived the importance of the implementation of EMI as well as its
linguistic benefits and employability to university students. Dearden (2014) defines EMI as“the use of the English language to teach academic subjects in countries or jurisdictions where
the first language (L1) of the majority of the population is not English” (p.4). This approachaims to broaden learners’ subject-area knowledge and promote their English proficiency andprofessional expertise in English. In this way, English seems to be a “tool for academic study,
not as a subject itself” (Taguchi, 2014, p. 89). Similarly, many scholars point out someadvantages of EMI, such as improving English, fully participating in international

9

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

communication (Cots, 2013; Seitzhanova, et al., 2015), encouraging international students toenroll, improving the university rankings, and promoting the learning of English (Cots, 2013).
Tatzl (2011) conducted a questionnaire survey and individual interviews on English-medium
masters’ programs at an Austrian university of applied sciences and indicated that the student
participants perceived the positive influence of EMI courses on their English language skills.
Tatzl (2011) notes that this is “the greatest benefit of English-medium instruction” (p. 258).
The lecturer participants in his study stated that students are encouraged to practice thelanguage in EMI courses. They believe that their EMI students are more confident in speaking
skills.
In Korea (Republic of Korea), scholars (Byun et al., 2011; Lee, 2014) show that EMI
approaches have been implemented at the tertiary level and expected to improve students’English skills to prepare them to work in the global environment. The findings from surveys
and focus groups conducted by Byun et al. (2011) and the Centre for Teaching and Learning
at Korean University indicate that students feel satisfied with EMI courses at Korean
University (KU) as these courses are believed to help improve students’ English proficiency.
As noted by Byun et al. (2011), the EMI policy at Korean University seems to be successful,or “at least the outcome of EMI policy has so far been in line with the broader policy goal ofinternationalizing KU” (p. 438). However, the students believe that their English abilities need
to be improved to take EMI courses more effectively, even though the findings show that
English competence does not significantly affect their understanding of the subject-areaknowledge.
A study undertaken with 476 EMI students at six Taiwanese universities by Yeh (2014) statedthat there are various reasons students take EMI courses. Their lecturers’ expertise in thecontent-area knowledge and their demands for improving their English ability are the mostfrequently cited. As with the findings of Byun et al. (2011), the participants in Yeh (2014)
believe that EMI courses have a positive influence on students’ English language skills,
especially their listening and reading skills.
However, in other contexts, the benefits of EMI for students are perceived differently. For
example, Lei and Hu (2014) conducted a study to examine whether EMI had any impact on
students’ English proficiency and affect in English learning and use from an undergraduate
EMI program at a Chinese university. Their findings indicate that EMI courses do not improvestudents’ English proficiency nor have a positive impact on English learning and use. Even,the students in their study perceived that “the intensive English listening and speaking
instruction that the EMI students received in freshman year appeared to be more effective in
improving their English proficiency than the EMI itself” (Lei and Hu, 2014, p. 122).
Interestingly, as with other scholars (Byun et al., 2011; Yeh, 2014), the findings of Chapple(2015), who conducted a mixed-method study using questionnaires and interviews withJapanese EMI teachers and students in two private universities in Western Japan, reveal that
EMI courses in Japan are mainly implemented to improve the English proficiency of university
students. However, as 34% of the students in these classes “failed to complete them and either
gave up or officially withdrew” (Chapple, 2015, p. 5), the linguistic gains through EMI courses
were described by the researchers as “dubious” (p. 4). Specifically, the findings of Chapple(2015) show that 33% of Japanese students in their study rate “Some” for the linguistics benefits
from EMI, 18% think they have “Considerable” improvement in language proficiency, while
24% confirm that there is no change in their English ability through EMI courses. The rest of

10

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

the students are unsure about the impact of EMI on their language ability. Significantly, someissues that influence the effects of this approach on teaching language skills are also presented
in Chapple (2015), such as one-way and teacher-centered Japanese teaching style and lecturers’
lack the ability to “teach EMI classes effectively” (Chapple, 2015, p. 4).
The perceived impact of EMI on students’ linguistic competence from previous studies indifferent contexts helps identify the issues that need to be addressed in the present study,
including whether students and lecturers perceive EMI to have an impact on Vietnamesestudents’ language proficiency and its impact on particular language aspects (listening skills,
reading skills, writing skills, speaking skills, knowledge of grammar and vocabulary). This
study was conducted to gain insights into lecturers’ and students’ perceptions of the impact of
EMI on students’ language proficiency using surveys and interviews at six universities locatedin Northern Vietnam, Central Vietnam, and Southern Vietnam.
Research Methods
An explanatory sequential mixed methods design, including surveys (students and lecturers),
interviews (lecturers), and focus groups (students), was adopted in this study. As suggested byscholars (Creswell, 2012; Mills & Gay, 2016; Pole, 2007), this design provides a better
understanding of the research problems or issues than either research approach alone. Closed
questions in questionnaires with five-point Likert items were adapted from Byun et al. (2011),
Yeh (2014), and Tatzl (2011). Particular Likert items of this study are shown in Table 1. The
items in the questionnaires seek an understanding of participants’ perceptions of the linguistic
benefits of EMI to students. Meanwhile, the semi-structured questions were used for in-depth
interviews with lecturers and focus group interviews with students to refine, consolidate andexplain the quantitative findings.
Table 1Five-Point Likert Items Used in the Study
Student Questionnaires
Categories
Likert items
Self-satisfaction with 1 = Not at all satisfied,language proficiency 2= Not satisfied, 3 =in EMI courses
Partially satisfied, 4 =Satisfied, 5 = Highly
satisfiedSelf-assessment offour language skills
Language
proficiency
improvement
through EMI courses

1= Poor, 2= Below
average, 3= Average, 4= Above average, 5 =Excellent
1 = Strongly disagree, 2= Disagree, 3 = Neutral,
4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly
agree.

11

Lecturer Questionnaires
Categories
Likert items
Students’
1 = Not at all, 2 = Not
languagemuch, 3 = Neutral, 4competence= Somewhat, 5 = Verybeforemuch.
commencing
EMI courses
Students’
1 = Strongly disagree,
language
2 = Disagree, 3 =proficiency
Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5
improvement= Strongly agree.
through EMI
courses

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Research Site and Participants
To understand the perceived impact of EMI on Vietnamese students’ language proficiency, six
Vietnamese universities in the southern, northern, and central parts of Vietnam were selectedto participate in this study, two universities in each part. These selected universities featured
and implemented EMI programs in their curriculum. The descriptions of content lecturers andEMI students involved in this research are presented in Figure 1 and the next section. The
selected EMI students were enrolling in EMI courses when participating in this study and thelecturer participants had at least one year of experience in EMI programs. As suggested by
Creswell (2012), the participants were selected randomly from the target universities to ensurethat they had an equal opportunity of being selected and the samples could be representative ofEMI students and lecturers.
Data Collection Procedures
The present study included two phases. In the first phase, the quantitative data were collected
through questionnaires for students and lecturers. Thirty content lecturers were invited, of
which five lecturers were from each selected university. Meanwhile, 360 EMI students wererandomly selected to respond to the questionnaires, of which 60 students were from eachselected university. The questionnaires were each composed of a number of scales, consistingof groups of Likert items. This paper rests on data from the two Impact scales, consisting of 31
items on the student questionnaire and 32 items on the lecturer questionnaire.
In the second phase, focus groups with 30 students and interviews with 12 lecturers were used
to collect the qualitative data, in which two lecturers and one five-student focus group wereinterviewed in each target university.
Figure 1
Participants of the Study

Phase 1

• Student questionnaires: 360 EMI students (60 students from eachselected university)• Lecturer questionnaires: 30 lecturers (5 lecturers from each selected
university)

Phase 2

• Student focus groups: 30 EMI students (6 five-student focus groups, 1
group in each selected university)• Lecturer interviews: 12 EMI lecturers (2 lecturers from each selected
university)

To ensure the participants fully understood the questions, the questionnaires, focus groups, andinterviews were conducted in Vietnamese. Then, in the stage of analysis and discussions,codes, nodes, and quotes were translated into English by the main researcher author, who isbilingual and familiar with the concepts of the study.
Data Analysis Procedures
Data from the student and lecturer questionnaires was entered into SPSS 25 for quantitative
analysis. SPSS is a statistical software, including “a wide range of statistical procedures” tohelp researchers obtain results that are “suitable for use in a research report” (Cronk, 2019,p.iii). Descriptive analysis of each questionnaire yielded demographic data for both the student

12

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

and lecturer samples and reliability measures suggested that the scales were internallyconsistent (Cronbach’s α = 0.9 for both student and lecturer scales).
The qualitative data were organized and coded using NVivo 22 which helps researchers
manage data from messy records into organizing and implementing a qualitative project, getideas rapidly, see the relationship among ideas and concepts and then “report from the data”(Bazeley & Jackson, 2013, p. 3). As the content analysis was the main focus and aim of theanalytical process in this study, both the content and context of documents from lecturer
interviews (Spencer, et al., 2003) were analyzed to identify key themes, categories, andconcepts (e.g., frequency of their occurrence, cluster), with the link to other variables (e.g.,gender, regional locations, teaching experience), including lecturers’ perceptions of the impact
of EMI on students’ language proficiency. Meanwhile, the relationships between themes werealso examined. In addition, the qualitative data from student focus groups were analyzed using
content analysis as the qualitative approach with a combination of two content analysis
techniques. Signs according to their meanings were classified through the semantic content
analysis in which “the frequency with certain objects (or persons, institution, or concepts) are
mentioned” and “characterized” (Stewart & Shamdasani, 2007, p. 119). At the same time, theclassical content analysis (Onwuegbuzie, et al., 2009) was also used to “create small chunks ofthe data and then placing a code with each chunk,” and then, these codes “are placed into
similar groupings and counted” (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009, p. 6). A matrix adapted fromOnwuegbuzie et al. (2009) was also applied for analyzing the data from student focus groups,
shown in Table 2.
Table 2Matrix for Focus Group Analysis
Categories

Groups and Respondents
Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

1

Members Members

Members

Members2

Members Members

Members

Members3

Members Members

Members

Members

Total
Group
5
Members
Members
Members

Group 6
Members(n)

Members(n)

Members(n)

Research Question
The findings of the quantitative and qualitative data of this study addressed the following
research question:
What is the perceived impact of EMI approaches on students’ English language
proficiency?

13

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Findings and Discussions
Students’ Data
Students’ self-satisfaction with language proficiency in EMI courses. Students in this study
showed that they were satisfied most with their reading skills (Mean = 3.6 out of 5), followed
by general vocabulary and listening skills. Meanwhile, they were moderately content with theirwriting skills, speaking skills, listening skills, knowledge of technical terms, and grammar, inwhich writing skills received the lowest mean ratings at 3.0. More detailed descriptive statistics
of students’ self-satisfaction with their language competence are presented in Table 3.
Table 3Students’ Self-Satisfaction with Language Proficiency in EMI Courses
Students’ Self-Satisfaction (N = 360)
(1 = Not at all satisfied, 2= not satisfied, 3 = Partially satisfied, 4 = satisfied, 5 =Highly satisfied)
Items
Mean
SD.
Reading skills
3.6
0.8
General vocabulary
3.5
0.8
Listening skills
3.4
0.9
Technical terminology
3.3
0.9
Grammar
3.3
0.8
Speaking skills
3.2
0.9
Writing skills
3.0
0.8

Students’ self-assessment of their four language skills. Overall, students rated their“Understanding discussions during the lesson” (listening skills) and “Understanding
instructions and questions in reading tasks” (reading skills) with the highest scored at 3.8 while“Using appropriate academic style” and “Coherence and cohesion in writing” of writing skills
were self-assessed with the lowest mean score at 3.3 and 3.2, respectively. More detailed
descriptive statistics of students’ self-assessment on their subskills of language competence arepresented in Table 4.
Table 4Students’ Self-Assessment of their Four Language Skills
Assessment on listening skills (N=360)(1= Poor, 2= Below average, 3= Average, 4 = Above average, 5 = Excellent)

Mean
Items
SD.
Understanding discussions during the lesson
3.8
0.8
Understanding the lecturer’s oral instructions
3.7
0.9
Understanding conversations outside the classroom
3.7
0.9
Listening and taking notes during lectures in class
3.7
0.9
Listening and understanding the content of lectures in class
3.6
0.9
Assessment on speaking skills (N=360)(1= Poor, 2= Below average, 3= Average, 4 = Above average, 5 = Excellent)
Discussing the subject-area knowledge in groups
3.5
0.8
Oral presentation skills
3.4
0.9
Expressing ideas about lectures
3.4
0.8

14

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Assessment on reading skills (N=360)(1= Poor, 2= Below average, 3= Average, 4 = Above average, 5 = Excellent)
Understanding instructions and questions in reading tasks
3.8
0.8
Reading and understanding the content of the lectures in class
3.7
0.8
Scanning and skimming skills to identify main ideas and
3.6
0.8
specific information
Answering reading comprehension questions
3.6
0.8
Summarizing lectures
3.5
0.8
Assessment on writing skills (N=360)(1= Poor, 2= Below average, 3= Average, 4 = Above average, 5 = Excellent)Completing course assignments in papers
3.4
0.8
Summarizing subject-area knowledge
3.4
0.8
Using appropriate academic style
3.3
0.8
Coherence and cohesion in writing
3.2
0.9

Some students in focus groups revealed that they had “sufficient language ability to understandthe lesson” (DG2 - Focus Group 4, 25 February 2017) or “average” (DG4, DG5 - Focus Group
4, 25 February 2017) as they attended general English classes or ESP/AEP classes before theycommenced EMI classes. Generally, student participants believed that they gained linguistic
benefits through EMI courses. More details of the students’ comments are presented in Table 5.
Table 5Students’ perceptions of their English proficiency improvement through EMI courses
Groups and Respondents
AG

BG

CG

DG

EG

DG1, DG2,
DG2, DG4,
DG5
EG1, EG4

EG3

DG1, DG2,
DG3, DG4,
DG5

EG1

10

EG3,
EG4

7

Readingskills

AG1, BG3
AG2

CG1, CG4

ListeningskillsAG2

DG1, DG2,
DG3, DG4,
DG5

SpeakingskillsAG5

WritingskillsTechnical
terms

BG1,
BG2,
BG4
BG1,
BG4,
BG5
BG2,
BG3,
BG4,
BG5

Total

CG1

AG1,
AG2

FG
11
11

EG1

FG2

4

As with the quantitative data, students believed that their reading and listening skills were
improved most:In the past, I read, but I did not understand it much, I meant I had to read very slowly.
However, now I can read, scan, and understand faster (CG1- Focus Group 3, 24
February 2017).
In the first year, I could read very slowly because there were a lot of complicatedtechnical terms that I did not know. Later, after one year [in EMI courses], the speed of15

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

my reading skill is improved, and my listening skill is better. I can understand the lesson
completely in class (AG2- Focus Group 1, 16 March 2017).
Students’ writing skills and vocabulary (technical terms) were believed to be improved throughEMI courses:
I have to read extra books in English; thus, I can learn a lot of new words, technicalterms in English. In addition, the subjects require students to write reports or do
assignments in English. I think my writing skill is much enhanced, better than listening
and speaking skills’ (EG4- Focus Group 5, 24 February 2017)
Personally, I think it [language ability] has been improved a lot, but in terms of technicalterms of Business rather than communication skills or something like that (EG1 - Focus
Group 5, 24 February 2017).
Unlike Tatzl's (2011) findings of students’ confidence in speaking skills, the quantitative andqualitative findings of this study indicate that students feel more satisfied with their receptive
skills (reading and listening skills) than their productive skills (speaking and writing skills).
According to Davies (1976), knowledge of a foreign language is divided into three main stages.
Receptive skills at the first and second stages enable students to “understand texts of various
degrees of complexity in the foreign language” and “understand the spoken language” (Davies,
1976, p. 441). Meanwhile, at a higher level of stage three, students with productive skills areable to communicate actively in the foreign tongue to speak it and write it. The data of thisstudy show that students have negative views of their productive skills, which is in line withthe findings of lecturers’ opinions of English abilities that students need to improve before
commencing EMI courses (see details below).
Students’ perceptions of the impact of EMI on their language proficiency are also reflected intheir self-assessment on each sub-language skills, in which the overall mean scores of listening
skills (Mean = 3.7 out of 5) and reading skills (Mean = 3.6 out of 5) are higher than writing
skills (Mean = 3.4 out of 5) and speaking skills (Mean = 3.4 out of 5). Accordingly, students’
self-assessment of receptive skills tends to be closer to “Above average” while productive skills
are perceived at “Average” level. For example, they can comprehensively listen and understandthe content and take notes during lectures (listening skills). Meanwhile, students believe thatthey can understand the content-area knowledge and scan and skim skills to identify main
points or specific information (reading skills).
Students’ perceptions of their language proficiency improvement in EMI courses. The
quantitative findings indicate that students rated their language competence improvement witha range of mean scores from 3.3 to 4.0. More detailed descriptive statistics are shown in Table 6.

16

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Table 6Students’ Perceptions of their Language Proficiency Improvement in EMI Courses
Students’ language proficiency improvement (N=360)(1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Disagree)
EMI courses help enhance my…
MeanSD.
knowledge of technical terminology
4.0
0.7
listening skills
3.7
0.8
reading skills
3.7
0.7
speaking skills
3.7
0.8
general vocabulary
3.7
0.8
writing skills
3.6
0.8
knowledge of grammar
3.3
0.9

Overall, students perceived that EMI had a positive impact on their language proficiency. The
data show that students’ knowledge of technical terminology was most improved, followed byreading skills, listening skills, and speaking skills, while their knowledge of grammar isbelieved to be improved least. As presented by Tran et al. (2021), who conducted a study to
explore challenges facing EMI students in Vietnamese EFL contexts, students had to read
textbooks and extra materials and prepare new words before class, which may explain why
their reading skills and knowledge of vocabulary were perceived to be improved most. As
explained in focus groups, students’ language proficiency improvement is linked to learningand teaching strategies and their own English level before commencing EMI courses, lecturers’
language proficiency, and students’ learning attitudes.
Lecturers’ Data
Lecturers’ assessment on students’ language competence before EMI courses. Figure 2
shows that half of the lecturer respondents rated students’ English proficiency before theycommenced EMI courses at “Somewhat”, 27% rated at “Neutral”, 13% at “Not much”, while
only 10% believed that their students’ language competence “Very much” meets the language
requirements for EMI courses.
Figure 2
Lecturers’ Assessment on Students’ English Ability Before EMI Courses

The findings are consolidated in students’ responses when they rated most of the items (5 outof 7) of their satisfaction of language proficiency below 3.5 (see Table 2). Tran (2020) notedthat there is a lack of consistency in language requirements for EMI programs among

17

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

universities in Vietnam, which may lead to the fact that EMI lecturers have various opinionsof the levels of students’ required English proficiency.
Students’ language proficiency improvement in EMI courses. Table 7 demonstrates thestatistics of lecturers’ ideas about students’ language ability improvement in EMI courses. As
with students, most of the lecturers see linguistic benefits of EMI courses to students’ English
level. Significantly, the highest score was at students’ technical terminology knowledge (Mean= 4.6), followed by reading skills and general vocabulary (Mean = 4.5). The least strong
agreement was rated at “Knowledge of grammar” (Mean = 3.8).
Table 7
Lecturers’ Perceptions of Students’ Language Ability Improvement Through EMI Courses
Students’ language proficiency improvement (N=30)(1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree
MeanSD.
Knowledge of technical terminology
4.6
0.6
General vocabulary

4.5

0.6

Reading skill

4.5

0.6

Writing skill

4.3

0.6

Listening skill

4.2

0.7

Speaking skill

4.0

0.8

Knowledge of grammar

3.8

0.9

As with the quantitative findings, some lecturer respondents in the interviews stated that thestudents’ vocabulary and reading skills were most improved, as stated:
The students’ knowledge is better after EMI courses. At least, their vocabulary andreading skills are improved (1E – Lecturer, interview, 10 March 2017).
The data also show that lecturers had more positive attitudes towards students’ improvements
in language proficiency through EMI courses while students seemed to be more modest about
their improvements. As noted by Tran et al. (2021), students were most challenged by
vocabulary difficulty. However, the findings of this study reveal that students’ knowledge oftechnical terms was believed to be improved most through EMI by both lecturers and students.
As mentioned above, teaching and learning strategies that are intended to help overcome
vocabulary difficulty may help students improve this aspect of language competence.
Students’ improvements of four language skills in EMI courses. Overall, lecturers agreed
that students made progress in terms of language learning through EMI courses, in which using
writing skills to complete course assignments and reading skills to reading and understand thecontent of the lectures in class were perceived to be most improved (Mean = 4.4). Meanwhile,
understanding conversations outside the classroom (listening skills) was the least score at 3.8.

18

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Table 8Descriptive Statistics of Lecturers’ Perceptions of Students’ Listening Skills
Students’ improvement in listening skills (N=30)(1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Disagree)
EMI courses help students improve their abilities in
Listening and understanding the content of lectures in class

Mean
4.2

SD.
0.8

Understanding lecturer’s oral instructions

4.2

0.7

Understanding discussions during the lesson

4.2

0.7

Listening and taking notes during the lectures in class

4.1

0.5

Understanding conversations outside the classroom

3.8

0.8

Students’ improvement in speaking skills (N=30)(1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Disagree)
Oral presentation skills
4.2
0.8
Discussing the subject-area knowledge in groups

4.2

0.8

Expressing ideas about lectures

4.1

0.8

Students’ improvement in reading skills (N=30)(1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Disagree)
Reading and understanding the content of the lectures in class
4.4
0.5
Understanding instructions and questions in reading tasks

4.3

0.5

Scanning and skimming skills to identify main ideas andspecific information
Answering reading comprehension questions

4.3

0.6

4.2

0.7

Summarizing lectures

4.0

0.7

Students’ improvement in writing skills (N=30)(1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Disagree)
Completing course assignments
4.4
0.7
Using appropriate academic style

4.1

0.6

Summarizing content-area knowledge

4.1

0.7

Coherence and cohesion in writing

4.0

0.7

The qualitative data findings show that although four language skills are thought to benecessary for the students in EMI courses, lecturers believe that reading skills and listening
skills are the most important. They think that students need to read many documents/textbooks
in English and understand lectures (listening skills) in class as “In my major, students need toread lots of books” (2A – Lecturer, interview, 14 March 2017). However, speaking skills areperceived to be the least important. Although EMI courses were believed to help students
improve their language proficiency, how much progress was actually made was explained
differently, as admitted: “not the same to all students” (2E – Lecturer, interview, 13 March2017). Some lecturers added that students’ language ability improvement depended on
lecturers’ and students’ efforts with no clear explanations of specific efforts or how they
worked to enhance students’ language proficiency.

19

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

With 6-years’ experience in teaching in English, I find that whether students canimprove English or not depends on the effort of both teachers and learners. The majorityof students’ language ability is improved. However, to what extent of the improvement
depends on the level of effort of the learner. In a class, about 20% of students makesignificant progress and their English ability has been improved from the first year totheir graduation, but 30% of them are at a low level (2D – Lecturer, interview, 22
February 2017).
As with students’ data, the lecturers’ data show that students’ English level before theycommence EMI courses and lecturers’ language proficiency influence students’ improvementin English competence.
Students’ language ability will be improved a lot if lecturers pronounce correctly; ifthey do not, there is no improvement (1C – Lecturer, interview, 16 March 2017).
More specifically, lecturers explained that students’ language proficiency was improved
because they used English as an everyday habit in class and during lesson preparations andhaving lectures in EMI classes.
Of course, their language proficiency has been improved. What you work with every
day, think of it every day, concern about it every day, it [English] will become yours.
…. Supposing the students are lazy, they do not want to study English at home.
However, at school, they study in an environment where English is used completely;
their language proficiency must be different [improved]. For example, they may notunderstand a word for the first time, but when they hear that word repeatedly for thesecond time, the third time, they will get it. Having experienced with 5 or 6 EMI courses
in the Advanced Programs, I have found that students’ language level is much improved(1D – Lecturer, interview, 16 March 2017).
As mentioned above, the students are modest about their progress in their language competence
through EMI courses. As noted by many scholars (Chapple, 2015; Tran et al., 2021), content
lecturers seem not to see their roles in students’ language learning and use through EMI courses
as their main responsibilities in EMI courses are believed to deliver content-area knowledge inEnglish. Content lecturers believe that students’ understanding of the content is the mostimportant. As a result, they tend to deny their responsibilities for teaching English in EMI
courses. Furthermore, Tran (2020) stated that Vietnamese lecturers did not perceive theeffectiveness of collaboration between language lecturers and content lecturers in EMI courses
in terms of linguistic support for students. The lecturers’ lack of language proficiency and EMI
training was also found in her study, which influences the way lecturers deliver the lecture in
English, learners’ engagement in the classroom, and the role of language and content teachingin EMI courses. Accordingly, students blame lecturers’ language proficiency, especiallylecturers’ accents and pronunciation, for the quality of EMI lectures and lecturers’ focus ondelivering the content but avoid communicating with students in English during EMI lectures(Tran et al., 2021). These factors may explain the findings of students’ perceived satisfaction
with their improvements in language competence in this study.
Limitations
The strength of this study is the mixed-methods design with the incorporation of lecturer andstudent voices to address the perceived impact of EMI on students’ language proficiency in

20

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

multiple perspectives. However, this study is based on the participants’ reported perceptions
and beliefs, and these may not adequately reflect practices happening in real EMI classrooms
such as which language skills are practiced and how much the first language is used. In
addition, the participants may not respond honestly when they give some comments on
sensitive items such as students’ responses to self-assessment on their own language ability
because they are concerned about losing face. Furthermore, two of the target universities
nominated the participants for the study; therefore, the respondents may avoid being disloyal
to their employers or lecturers. Finally, the target research sites of this study are focal
universities in big cities of three parts of Vietnam; consequently, the results may not be
generalized to other Vietnamese universities in other parts of Vietnam.
Recommendations
EMI courses at the tertiary level are expected to bring students linguistic and non-linguistic
goals (Tran, 2020). However, in an under-resourced context like Vietnam, the implementationof EMI needs to be well prepared and deployed to help students gain linguistic benefits. The
findings of the present study suggest some implications for implementers (students, lecturers,
and universities) and further research in Vietnamese tertiary EFL contexts.
First, EMI students need to well perceive the importance of their English level before
commencing EMI courses. Students’ English competence needs to be assessed throughstandardized benchmarks such as IELTS, TOEFL, “which are tailored to academic skills”(Nguyen et al., 2017, p. 43). In addition, English language teaching should prepare students forlanguage competence from secondary and tertiary levels. Even when students meet thelanguage requirements for EMI programs, English for specific purposes and English for
Academic Purposes courses should be considered to equip them with skills of using language
academically before they attend EMI courses.
Second, as discussed above, lecturers’ lack of language proficiency may affect students’ language
learning. Therefore, lecturers should be aware of the roles of professional development, especiallyin preparing language competence for delivering the content-area knowledge in English,
particularly their communicative skills (e.g., accent, pronunciation, accuracy, and fluency of
expression in EMI lectures, and in dealing with questions) and the use of English in the academic
environment. For example, they should attain language certificates such as IELTS, TOEFL or takepart in international conferences and training courses for EMI lecturers. They also should consider
consultancy or collaboration with language lecturers.
The findings of this study were mainly based on lecturers’ and students’ opinions. More researchshould be undertaken to understand better the actual impact of EMI on students’ language learning.
For example, classroom observations may provide evidence of how four language skills arepracticed and how much English is used in EMI courses. Pretests and posttests are also a good way
to assess students’ language improvement.

Conclusions
The Vietnamese government encourages the implementation of EMI programs in tertiary EFL
contexts in the expectation that they will improve students’ language ability “as part of thenational internationalization agenda” (Tran, Burke, & O’Toole, 2021, p.49). In this study,
students’ and lecturers’ positive attitudes toward the impact of EMI on students’ language
proficiency, especially on students’ receptive skills (Listening and Reading), suggest alignment
between the government’s intentions and student and lecturer perceptions. The current study’s

21

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

findings provide one baseline for research on other EMI programs within Vietnam and in nonEnglish speaking countries or for other additional languages as a medium of instruction
programs.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank The International Research Foundation for English Language Education(TIRF) for their financial support.

22

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

References
Bazeley, P., & Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. Sage.
Byun, K., Chu, H., Minjung, K., Park, I., Kim, S., & Jung, J. (2011). English-medium
teaching in Korean higher education: Policy debates and reality. Higher Education,
62, 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9397-4
Chapple, J. (2015). Teaching in English is not necessarily the teaching of English.
International Education Studies, 8(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n3p1
Collins, A. B. (2010). English-medium higher education: Dilemma and problems. Eurasian
Journal of Educational Research, 39, 97–110. http://hdl.handle.net/11693/48964
Cots, J. M. (2013). Introducing English-medium instruction at the University of Lleida,
Spain: Intervention, beliefs and practices. In English-medium instruction atuniversities: Global challenges (pp. 106–130). Multilingual Matters.
http://reader.eblib.com.ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson.
Cronk, B. C. (2019). How to use SPSS®: A step-by-step guide to analysis and interpretation:
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429340321
Davies, N. F. (1976). Receptive versus productive skills in foreign language learning. The
Modern Language Journal, 60(8), 440–443.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1976.tb03667.x
Dearden, J. (2014). English as a medium of instruction – a growing global phenomenon.
British Council. 10.13140/RG.2.2.12079.94888
Goodman, B. A. (2014). Implementing English as a medium of instruction in a Ukrainian
University: Challenges, adjustments, and opportunities. International Journal of
Pedagogies & Learning, 9(2), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.5172/ijpl.2014.9.2.130
Kirkpatrick, A. (2011). English as a medium of instruction in Asian education (from primary
to tertiary): Implications for local languages and local scholarship. In L. Wei (Ed.),
Applied Linguistics Review 2 (Vol. 2, pp. 99–119). De Gruyter Mouton.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110239331.99
Le, D. M. (2012a). English as a medium of instruction at tertiary education system in
Vietnam. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 9(2), 97–122
Lee, G. J. (2014). Why students don’t participate in English medium instruction classes in a
Korean university: A case study. English Teaching, 69, 91–117
https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.69.1.201403.91
McKay, S. L. (2014). Commentary: English-medium education in the global society Findings and implications. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 52(2), 221–228. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2014-0010
Mills, G. E., & Gay, L. G. (2016). Educational research: Competencies for analysis andapplications (11th ed.). Pearson
Nguyen, H. T., Walkinshaw, I., & Pham, H. H. (2017). EMI programs in a Vietnameseuniversity: Language, pedagogy and policy issues. In English medium instruction inhigher education in Asia-Pacific (pp. 37–52). Springer.

23

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Dickinson, W. B., Leech, N. L., & Zoran, A. G. (2009). A qualitative
framework for collecting and analyzing data in focus group research. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(3), 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F160940690900800301
Othman, J., & Saat, R. M. (2009). Challenges of using English as a medium of instruction:
Pre-service science teachers’ perspective. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher,18(2), 307–316. https://doi.org/10.3860/taper.v18i2.1331
Pole, K. (2007). Mixed method designs: A review of strategies for blending quantitative andqualitative methodologies. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 20(4), 35–38.
Seitzhanova, A., Plokhikh, R., Baiburiev, R., & Tsaregorodtseva, A. (2015). Language in
Education. Perspectives of Innovations, Economics & Business, 15(3), 113–116.
https://doi.org/10.15208/pieb.2015.11
Smala, S. (2009). New literacies in a globalised world. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years,
17(3), 45–50.
Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., & O’Connor, W. (2003). Analysis: Practices, principles andprocesses. In Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students andresearchers (pp. 199–218). Sage.
Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (2007). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Sage.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412991841
Taguchi, N. (2014). English-medium education in the global society. International Review ofApplied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 52(2), 89–98.
https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2014-0004
Tatzl, D. (2011). English-medium masters’ programmes at an Austrian university of appliedsciences: Attitudes, experiences and challenges. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 10, 252–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.08.003
Tran, T. H. T., Burke, R., & O’Toole, J. M. (2021). The evolution of English as a medium of
instruction in Vietnamese tertiary EFL contexts. In K. M. Bailey & D. Christian(Eds.), Research on Teaching and Learning English in Under-Resourced Contexts(Vol. 8, pp. 45-59). New York: Routledge.
Tran, T. H. T. (2020). Policy and practices in English as a medium of instruction in
Vietnamese tertiary EFL contexts. (Doctoral). The University of Newcastle
Wächter, B., & Maiworm, F. (2014). English-taught programmes in European higher
education. ACA Papers on International Cooperation in Education. Lemmens.
Yeh, C.-C. (2014). Taiwanese students’ experiences and attitudes towards English-medium
courses in tertiary education. RELC Journal, 45(3), 305-319.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688214555358
Corresponding author: Thi Hoai Thu Tran
Email: hoaithungoaingu@gmail.com

24