English-medium instruction (EMI) in higher education presents a set of interrelated challenges and areas that influence effective learning. Based on a systematic synthesis of the literature by Ponomarevskyi and Horbacauskiene (manuscript under review), six key domains of effective learning in EMI were identified: psychological, linguistic, cognitive, pedagogical, sociocultural, and organizational. These domains are associated with key educational components affected by EMI, including student academic performance, teaching quality, and EMI programme feasibility. The domains are conceptualised as interrelated rather than independent. In particular, organizational and sociocultural conditions are understood to shape pedagogical practices, while pedagogical and linguistic practices influence students’ cognitive and psychological processes involved in learning in EMI settings (Li et al., 2024; Macaro et al., 2020; Mittelmeier et al., 2021; Morell et al., 2022a, 2022b; Tai & Tang, 2020).

The study adopts a multilingual perspective on EMI, focusing on practices such as the use of L1 learning materials, code-switching, translingual strategies, and pedagogical sensitivity to linguistic and cultural diversity. From this perspective, effective learning in EMI is conceptualised as the alignment of teaching methods with intended learning outcomes, alongside favourable learner perceptions and supportive instructional and institutional environments. Such alignment is expected to influence how learners engage cognitively and metacognitively with disciplinary content delivered through an additional language (de Diezmas et al., 2024; Richards & Pun, 2022; Williams, 2024).

These considerations give rise to the following research question: How can curriculum development benefit the effective learning of higher education bachelor students in an English-medium instruction (EMI) setting?

To answer this question, the study sets out the following objectives:

1.                   To examine how students’ lived experiences and university professors’ instructional practices shape effective EMI learning in university classrooms.

2.                   To outline the key factors for improving overall academic performance and teaching in EMI university programmes.

3.                   To determine teaching practices and learning strategies having the most significant potential to enhance academic outcomes in EMI contexts.

The theoretical foundations of effective EMI learning in this study draw on several established frameworks. Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956) is used to conceptualise learning outcomes as progressing from basic knowledge acquisition to higher-order analytical and evaluative skills. Constructivist theory posits that learners develop deeper understanding when they actively construct meaning through interaction and engagement rather than passively receive information (Piaget, 1952; Vygotsky, 1978). Metacognitive theory highlights the role of learners’ awareness and regulation of their own learning processes, including monitoring, self-regulation, and reflection, which are particularly salient in linguistically demanding EMI contexts (Flavell, 1976). Cognitive Load Theory further informs the framework by emphasising the importance of instructional design that minimises extraneous cognitive load and supports learners’ processing of essential content in a second language (Sweller, 1988).

Taken together, these perspectives inform a provisional conceptual framework that guides the present research by sensitising the analysis to how different domains of EMI learning interact and how pedagogical and linguistic practices mediate learners’ cognitive and psychological engagement. At this pre-empirical stage, the framework serves as an exploratory and theory-informed guide for the formulation of research questions and the design of the empirical study. It will be refined following data collection and analysis to better reflect the relationships observed in the specific EMI context under investigation. 

The empirical component of this study will be conducted from March 1 to May 31, 2026, during a PhD research internship at a private university in northern Spain with a strong international student population from the Americas, Europe, Africa, and Asia, and a particularly high representation of Latin American students due to historical ties. Research will consist of semi-structured interviews and semi-structured, non-interventionist (non-participant) observations of university classrooms. Two types of interview frameworks will be implemented: student interviews and teacher interviews. With the subject’s consent, interviews will be audio-recorded during in-person sessions or virtual meetings via Google Meet, Microsoft Teams, or Zoom, whichever option is most convenient for the participant. These audio recordings will subsequently be transcribed and coded for analysis. Each interview lasts approximately 60 minutes. It is planned to interview up to 30 students and approximately 30 university instructors. The transcription of audio files will be done partly manually and partly using aTrain proprietary software, complying with the GDPR regulation. Once the interview transcripts are complete, a qualitative thematic content analysis will be conducted using MAXQDA. During classroom observations, data will be collected using a semi-structured observation log. The observation log will include fields for documenting the time and detailed entries on language and communication use, observable pedagogical and cognitive processes, learner agency, and social-emotional development during the EMI classes. It is planned to observe 20 classes of various formats (lectures, seminars, collective/project assignments) and courses. Prior to each observation, the following details will be noted in the log: course title, number of students present (for later analysis of learning dynamics in small versus large groups), the form of activity (lecture, seminar, other practical assignment), academic year, and the date and time of the observed class. Data collected during the classroom observations is focused on students’ experiences and teachers’ practices, providing details on observable linguistic, pedagogical, cognitive, psychological and sociocultural aspects in the EMI setting. Digital observation logs with the assigned specific codes will be uploaded to MAXQDA, and a qualitative thematic content analysis will be conducted. Sampling methods: Purposive sampling, constrained by institutional access, is employed. In principle, research targets participants directly involved in EMI learning. However, due to possible access constraints at a foreign institution, it may become an access-based sampling. More specifically, this research implies a non-probability sampling design with a mix of dimensional and maximum variation as a subtype of purposive sampling.

The Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research (Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research)

1.Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook: The Cognitive Domain. David McKay, New York. 2.Li, L., Curdt-Christiansen, X., & Zhu, D. (2024). Becoming and being a teacher through emotion discourse: A case study of a novice EMI teacher. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2024.2369173 3.Macaro, E., Akincioglu, M., & Han, S. (2020). English medium instruction in higher education: Teacher perspectives on professional development and certification. International Journal of Applied Linguistics (United Kingdom), 30(1), 144-157. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12272 4.Mittelmeier, J., Slof, B., & Rienties, B. (2021). Students’ perspectives on curriculum internationalisation policies in transition: Insights from a master’s degree programme in the Netherlands. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 58(1), 107-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2019.1675529 5.Morell, T., Aleson-Carbonell, M., & Escabias-Lloret, P. (2022a). Prof-teaching: An English-medium instruction professional development program with a digital, linguistic and pedagogical approach. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 16(4-5), 392-411. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2022.2052298 6.Morell, T., Beltrán-Palanques, V., & Norte, N. (2022b). A multimodal analysis of pair work engagement episodes: Implications for EMI lecturer training. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101124 7.Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (M. Cook, Trans.). International Universities Press. (Original work published 1936) 8.Richards, J. C., & Pun, J. K. H. (2022). Teaching and learning in English medium instruction: An introduction. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003203971 9.Tai, T. E., & Tang, C. W. (2021). The role of graduate students’ learning strategies in reducing their English medium instruction avoidance: The mediation effect of language anxiety. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 41(2), 368-384. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1777937 10.Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press 11.Williams, A., Stevens, J. R., Anderson, R., & Bogren, M. (2024). Challenges and opportunities of English as the medium of instruction in diploma midwifery programs in Bangladesh: A mixed-methods study. BMC Medical Education, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05499-8