Our research focuses on how first-year students experience English-medium instruction (EMI) in a Kazakhstani university and what these experiences reveal about the policy–practice gap in EMI-driven internationalisation compared to wider European and global trends (Goodman et al., 2025; Hwami, 2024). More specifically, it investigates how linguistic, pedagogical, socio‑affective, and equity-related factors shape students’ learning trajectories in EMI programmes and how these dynamics mirror or diverge from patterns reported in other non‑Anglophone higher education systems, particularly in Europe (Unangst et al., 2022).

The study is guided by a combined theoretical framework drawing on Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and Sociocultural Theory (SCT). CLIL, which emerged from European bilingual and multilingual education debates, conceptualises EMI as a dual‑focus enterprise in which students learn disciplinary content and an additional language simultaneously (Coyle, 2018). From this perspective, the study interprets students’ reports of dense academic vocabulary, rapid lecture pace, and limited modelling of academic writing as manifestations of excessive language and cognitive load in the absence of systematic CLIL‑informed scaffolding such as pre‑teaching key terminology, multimodal explanations, and explicit support for academic literacies (Yessenbekova, 2023; Tulepova et al., 2026). This places the Kazakhstani case in dialogue with European CLIL/EMI research that similarly highlights the risks of treating EMI as a simple language switch rather than as a comprehensive pedagogical redesign. 

Sociocultural Theory complements CLIL by foregrounding learning as a socially mediated process that unfolds within the Zone of Proximal Development through interaction with more knowledgeable others, tools, and institutional structures (Vygotsky, 1978). SCT concepts such as mediation, scaffolding, affect, and learner agency illuminate how students rely on peers, tutors, digital resources (e.g., YouTube, translation tools), and supportive teachers to cope with EMI challenges, and how anxiety, fear of mistakes, and evolving confidence shape their participation in classroom communities (Tajik et al., 2025; Amanzhol et al., 2024). This lens also helps unpack equity issues: students’ differing school backgrounds and English preparation mean they enter EMI with unequal resources for participating in these mediational networks, echoing concerns in Kazakhstani and European scholarship that EMI can reproduce or exacerbate social stratification in access and outcomes. 

By integrating CLIL and SCT, the framework captures both structural and interactional dimensions of EMI. CLIL explains the design‑level tensions between Kazakhstan’s internationalisation ambitions, rooted in the trilingual policy and Bologna‑aligned reforms, and the limited pedagogical adaptation of programmes to students’ linguistic realities (Manan & Hajar, 2024). SCT, in turn, reveals how students actively negotiate, resist, and re‑mediate these conditions through social relations and strategic use of cultural tools, thereby partially compensating for institutional gaps (Tulepova et al., 2024). Positioning Kazakhstan’s post‑Soviet, multilingual context alongside European EMI developments thus allows the study to contribute to international debates on how Englishisation interacts with equity, quality, and multilingualism in higher education, rather than treating Kazakhstan as an isolated case. 

This study adopts a qualitative, exploratory design to examine first-year students’ experiences of English-medium instruction (EMI) in a Kazakhstani university within the broader context of internationalisation and Englishisation in higher education (Creswell, 2017; Tajik et al.,2025). A qualitative approach was chosen because EMI implementation is highly context-dependent and intertwined with learners’ prior histories, emotions, and social relations, which are not easily captured through survey-based methods (Unangst et al., 2022). Data were generated through semi-structured interviews with eight first-year undergraduate students enrolled in EMI programmes, selected via purposive sampling to reflect diverse linguistic and educational backgrounds (Sullivan et al., 2012). The participants here referred to by the pseudonyms, differed in school type (EMI vs. non EMI), urban–rural background, and level of English proficiency, enabling exploration of equity and preparedness issues documented in the Kazakhstani EMI literature. Interviews lasted 30–45 minutes, followed a common guide, and were conducted primarily in English, with the option to use Kazakh or Russian as needed, reflecting translanguaging practices typical of post Soviet EMI classrooms. The interview protocol was informed by international and Kazakhstani EMI scholarship and organised around themes such as motivation for choosing EMI, linguistic preparedness, lecture comprehension, academic reading and writing, participation, anxiety, coping strategies, and perceived institutional support. This design ensured alignment with the study’s theoretical framework, which combines Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and Sociocultural Theory (SCT). CLIL concepts guided questions about language and cognitive load, scaffolding, and teacher adaptations while SCT informed prompts about peer support, mediation, affect, and learner agency. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase procedure, which is widely used in EMI and CLIL research. Coding combined deductive categories derived from CLIL and SCT (e.g., lexical load, scaffolding, mediation, Zone of Proximal Development) with inductive codes emerging from participants’ narratives (e.g., “using YouTube,” “fear of speaking,” “background gaps”). Themes were iteratively developed and reviewed to capture cross-cutting patterns related to linguistic and cognitive load, pedagogical and institutional scaffolding, sociocultural mediation, affective dimensions, self-regulation, and equity, in line with existing Kazakhstani and international studies (Goodman et al., 2025; Kerimkulova et al., 2023). Researcher reflexivity was maintained through field notes and ongoing consideration of positionality as a researcher familiar with EMI debates in Kazakhstan and Europe. Ethical procedures included informed consent, anonymisation of participants and the institution, and secure storage of data.

This study shows that first-year students in a Kazakhstani EMI university face a layered set of linguistic, pedagogical, socio affective, and equity-related challenges. While participants value EMI for its perceived academic and career benefits, they report substantial difficulties with dense disciplinary vocabulary, fast-paced lectures, and unfamiliar academic writing conventions, indicating that content and language demands are not adequately scaffolded in line with CLIL principles. These findings confirm that EMI is often implemented as a symbolic marker of global competitiveness rather than as a fully re-designed pedagogical model in Kazakhstan’s post Soviet, multilingual context. At the same time, the data highlight the central role of sociocultural mediation in making EMI survivable for students. Learners rely heavily on peers, tutors, supportive instructors, and digital tools such as YouTube and translation apps to bridge comprehension gaps and manage anxiety, illustrating key SCT concepts of mediation, scaffolding, and the Zone of Proximal Development in practice. Affective dimensions such as fear of making mistakes, low initial confidence, and gradual adaptation, strongly shape participation and suggest that emotional support is as important as linguistic support in EMI classrooms. Crucially, the study finds that EMI amplifies existing inequalities: students from better-resourced, often urban, or EMI-oriented schools adapt more easily, while those from non EMI or rural backgrounds face steeper linguistic and cognitive burdens and must invest disproportionate effort in self-regulation. This confirms concerns that Englishisation can reproduce social stratification unless accompanied by targeted support and entry-sensitive policies. Overall, the conclusions point to the need for systemic reforms such as CLIL-informed teacher training, explicit academic literacy support, institutionalised scaffolding tools, and bridging programmes for lower-proficiency students, so that EMI in Kazakhstan moves from a primarily symbolic internationalisation strategy toward a more equitable and pedagogically sustainable practice that can meaningfully align with global standards.

Reference list Amanzhol, N., Amanova, A., Kerimbekova, B., Zholmakhanova, A., & Sarmurzin, Y. (2024). “My expectation did not meet reality”: challenges of undergraduate students in English-medium instruction in Kazakhstan. Asian Education and Development Studies, 13(1), 31-44. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Coyle, D. (2018). The place of CLIL in (bilingual) education. Theory Into Practice, 57(3), 166-176. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications. Goodman, B., Assylbekova, A., & Yembergenova, A. (2025). EMI and CLIL in Kazakhstani Higher Education: Current Policies and Future Possibilities. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 48(1), 12-29. Hwami, M., Yeszhanova, S., Amanzhol, M., Okafor, C. E., & Tursynbayeva, M. (2024). Internationalization of higher education in Central Asia: a systematic review. Central Asian Survey, 43(3), 400-419. Kerimkulova, S., Goodman, B., & Aitzhanova, K. (2023). EMI in higher education in Kazakhstan: Policy supports and challenges. In Policies, politics, and ideologies of English-medium instruction in Asian universities (pp. 15-32). Routledge. Manan, S. A., & Hajar, A. (2024). Understanding English medium instruction (EMI) policy from the perspectives of STEM content teachers in Kazakhstan. TESOL Journal, 15(4), e847. Sullivan, C., Gibson, S., & Riley, S. (2012). Doing your qualitative psychology project. Sage. Tajik, M. A., Namyssova, G., Shamatov, D., Manan, S. A., Zhunussova, G., & Antwi, S. K. (2025). Navigating the potentials and barriers to EMI in the post-Soviet region: Insights from Kazakhstani university students and instructors. International Journal of Multilingualism, 22(2), 990-1010. Tulepova, S., Bekturova, M., Gaipov, D., & Butt, S. (2024). Investigating English medium instruction provision in a Kazakhstani university: the ideals and realities of EMI learning. Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 433-444. Tulepova, S., Bekturova, M., Kassymova, G., & Gaipov, D. (2026). Challenges in Academic English Writing: Evidence from Kazakhstani EMI University. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, (45), 179-193. Unangst, L., Altbach, P. G., & de Wit, H. (2022). English As Medium of instruction in non-anglophone countries: A global comparative analysis of policies, practices, and implications. In International student recruitment and mobility in non-Anglophone countries (pp. 32-46). Routledge. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Yessenbekova, K. (2023). English as a medium of instruction in Kazakhstani higher education: a case study. Current Issues in Language Planning, 24(2), 141-159.