Problem statement: The globalization and internationalization of higher education have consolidated the spread of the English Medium Instruction (EMI) among universities around the world (Dearden, 2014). The COVID-19 pandemic made EMI even more salient since it gave an opportunity to many students to take courses online regardless of their location with the only condition to know and speak English. 

Universities in Kazakhstan started to establish EMI education just a decade ago following multiple governmental directives, references, initiatives and policies. EMI, just like internationalization reforms and policies in Kazakhstan, has been imposed top-down (Jumabekov & Ashirbekov, 2014) and little is known about how institutions translate policies into practice. Little knowledge exists on institutional readiness to  EMI policy and how universities are enacting the policy that is not clearly articulated at the ministry level. However, when inchoate state policy is introduced, institutions, as a rule, may introduce policy, ignoring their capacity or enacting it based on their interpretation (Bergmark & Hansson, 2021). Thus, policy actors’ interpretation of EMI  and any (mis)alignment between EMI as policy and the actual experiences deserve rigorous and in-depth investigation. 

Research question: How the national policy of EMI is being interpreted and enacted in two HEIs located in two different universities in Kazakhstan? What are the successes and challenges in the enactment of EMI policy?

Conceptual framework: The study is built within the enactment theory (Ball et al., 2012), the onion framework (Hornberger and Ricento, 1996) and the Language-in-education planning (LEP) framework (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997). 

When studying the policy implementation, one should acknowledge that the organizations are not simple and coherent agencies, but consist of “different and overlapping groups of people, artefacts, and practices” (Ball et al., 2012, p. 143). Therefore, the enactment theory is used to unveil the complexity of institutions in  policy implementation and to recognize the role of each actor in the process of putting  policy into action (Lopes, 2016) considering the context. 

The use of LEP framework allows viewing EMI as not just a language policy but employing specifically a medium of instruction perspective. LEP framework is helpful to examine how stakeholders negotiate EMI to meet institutional and national language policy objectives, considering the components of medium of instruction policy (access, key policy actors, curriculum, pedagogical issues, resources, evaluation and local contextual factors within university). The failure to address any of those components or misalignment between them cause distortion from the policy goal and may not lead to the successful implementation of the policy.

LEP planning requires the intervention of different participants at different levels (Ricento & Hornberger, 1996). By disclosing the processes at each level, research can examine dynamic practices that occur as language policy moves to classrooms. Therefore, the onion framework will be used to illuminate the complexity of language-in-education policy, highlighting the role of key policy actors in the process of policy formulation and execution (Menken & Garcia, 2010). The onion framework consists of several layers such as legislation and political processes at the outer layer, states, and supranational agencies, institutions at the next level, and classroom practitioners at the centre of the onion. Legislation and policy guidelines are interpreted and modified as they move across layers to the centre. Actors or agents across the layers of the ‘onion’ enact the language policies engaging with the activities, interacting and influencing one another. 

These frameworks have been used separately in language policy studies. However, the combination of these frameworks helps understand the enactment process as a whole, at multiple levels and from the perspectives of a range of policy actors (university leadership, deans, teachers, students), considering the contextual characteristics of universities. 

The study is based on a qualitative research methodology. It employs an instrumental interpretive multiple case study research design to explore the EMI policy and its enactment in state and national universities. It is an interpretive case study because the study aims to develop conceptual categories, support and challenge theoretical assumptions held prior to data gathering (Merriam, 1998). This is also an instrumental case study because this research was not interested in a specific person or institution but was aimed to generate knowledge about a particular phenomenon using an institution and people within the institution (Stake, 2005). Multiple cases allowed to get a better understanding of the phenomenon and provides an opportunity to theorize about a broader context (Berg & Lune, 2012; Merriam & Tisdell, 2012). Also, through the differences in research sites, the study revealed context-specific situations (Yin, 2009) in the EMI policy enactment. The data was gathered in one national university and one state university, that are located in different regions of the country and have been running EMI programs or multilingual programs for at least 3-5 years. To remind, national and state universities are the first to implement the national policy. They are accountable to ministry and receive a major funding source from the government. Moreover, a large concentration of students, including international students and state scholarship holders, in national and state universities (MoES, n.d.) made it even more important and interesting to study. Consistent with the conceptual framework, this study recruited four different categories of stakeholders - senior leadership members, heads of department, faculty members, and students. I used three types of data collection instruments such as individual semi-structured interviews, focus group interviews and document analysis. I analyzed institutional documents to understand how senior administration interpret the EMI policy and frame LEP in the institution. Semi-structured interview helped me explore interpretations of university staff about EMI policy, stories about their enactment practices, obstacles they face when enacting the policy. In comparison to one-to-one interviews, focus group discussions with students allowed me to observe the interaction between the participants, to analyze other details such as a variety of attitudes, opinions, and experiences. This was essential in particular with students as I didn't observe classes, and those ‘observation’ details were obtained in the focus group discussions. The analysis of institutional documents helped understand what LEP is being interpreted by different stakeholders at each level of the university hierarchy.

Although the gathered data is currently being analyzed, some general conclusions are made. Implementation of EMI policy has been surprisingly neglected by scholars, notwithstanding the wide range of studies conducted in EMI. In this regard, the findings help us understand what EMI practices are and how these practices fluctuate within and across the two universities. Based on preliminary analysis, it can be noted that the challenges of different universities may be similar, but the universities and departments find different ways of addressing the issues. The absence of a clear national policy allows state and national universities to make their own solutions and even modify the EMI policy based on their resources. Secondly, the study contributes to the policy by informing policymakers about the challenges the policy faces in its execution, the EMI strategies that appear to work in the institution and the practices that should be reconsidered. According to the findings, the language issue appears to be the most urgent, but it is not caused only by the low language proficiency of students. The problem may be explained by the fact that the university has a clear language policy but it is not aligned with the existing resources and the needs of students and teachers. Findings also show that the communication between stakeholders is not well-established. The students and teachers are unaware and not certain about the resources available whereas the heads of departments and head of EMI policy at the university are not well informed about the challenges of students and teachers. Thus, for the policy to work more effective the university leadership and its staff need to build a consistent network for spreading information. Moreover, this issue relates not only to vertical communication but horizontal as well. Some departments don't work in alignment with each other.

Ball, S. J. (1994). Education reform. McGraw-Hill Education. Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. Routledge. Bradford, A. (2016). Toward a typology of implementation challenges facing English medium instruction in higher education: Evidence from Japan. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(4), 339-356. DOI: 10.1177/1028315316647165 Coleman, H. (2011). Allocating resources for English: The case of Indonesia’s English medium international standard schools. Dreams and realities: Developing countries and the English language, 3(2), 87-111. Coleman, J. A. (2006). English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language Teaching, 39(1), 1-14. DOI: 10.1017/S026144480600320X Dearden, J., & Macaro, E. (2016). Higher education teachers' attitudes towards English Medium Instruction: A three-country comparison. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(3), 455-486. Doiz, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2020). Dealing with language issues in English-medium instruction at university: A comprehensive approach. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(3), 257-262. DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2020.1727409 Galloway, N., Kriukow, J., & Numajiri, T. (2017). Internationalisation, higher education and the growing demand for English: An investigation into the English medium of instruction (EMI) movement in China and Japan [online]. British Council. Available at: https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/H035%20ELTRA%20Internationalisation_HE_and%20the%20growing%20demand%20for%20English%20A4_FINAL_WEB.pdf [Accessed 29 Nov. 2019] Singh, P., Thomas, S., & Harris, J. (2013). Recontextualising policy discourses: A Bernsteinian perspective on policy interpretation, translation, enactment. Journal of Education Policy, 28(4), 465-480. Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B., Burch, P., Hallett, T., Jita, L., & Zoltners, J. (2002). Managing in the middle: School leaders and the enactment of accountability policy. Educational Policy, 16(5), 731-762. Taylor, S., Rizvi, F., Lingard, B., & Henry, M. (1997). Globalisation, the state and education policy making. Educational Policy and the Politics of Change. Routledge. Tsui, A. B., & Tollefson, J. W. (2004). The centrality of medium-of-instruction policy in sociopolitical processes. Medium of instruction policies: Which agenda? Whose agenda, 1-18. Routledge. Walkinshaw, I., Fenton-Smith, B., & Humphreys, P. (2017). EMI issues and challenges in Asia-Pacific higher education: An introduction. In English medium instruction in higher education in Asia-Pacific (pp. 1-18). Springer. Wilkinson, R. (2013). English-medium instruction at a Dutch university: Challenges and pitfalls. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), English-medium instruction at universities: Global challenges (pp. 3–24). Multilingual Matters. Williams, D. G. (2015). A systematic review of English medium instruction (EMI) and implications for the South Korean higher education context. English Language Teaching World Online, Special Issue on CLIL, (2014), 1-23.