Gaps between policy aspirations and enactment: graduate students’ struggles with academic English amidst a turbulent transition to the EMI environment in Kazakhstani universities

ABSTRACT

This study investigated multilingual students’ linguistic challenges at English-medium instruction (EMI) universities in Kazakhstan. Using language policy and planning as a theoretical lens, this study looked at EMI policy in general, particularly the academic English challenges of students due to a haphazard implementation of the EMI policy in Kazakhstani universities. The data were collected through an online survey and semi-structured interviews held with students and instructors at eight purposefully selected EMI universities in Kazakhstan. The data analysis revealed that over 70% of students had no prior exposure to EMI, 66.9% were dissatisfied with their English proficiency, 65.3% were dissatisfied with their literacy skills, and 72.6% did not enjoy reading and writing in English. Therefore, their transition to the EMI environment was chaotic and stressful. The EMI policy and practice seem to have failed because the macro-level policy from the top is not in sync with the resources and preparation at the micro-level (teachers and students). The ambitious goals of internationalization, global competitiveness, and human capital development through EMI cannot be achieved without careful planning, systematic implementation, and appropriate support mechanisms for students and instructors.

KEYWORDS:

• Academic Reading
• academic writing
• EMI policy
• internationalization
• English-medium instruction-EMI

Introduction

Given the rapid changes in sociopolitical and socioeconomic environments, the perceived value of the English language has become more prominent lately in the Asian higher education landscape. As a result, an increasing number of universities in Asia have begun teaching all academic content in English, teaching English as a foreign, second language or for academic and specific purposes, a practice which is commonly referred to as English-medium instruction (EMI) (Kirkpatrick, 2012; Kirkpatrick & Liddicoat, 2019; Sah & Fang, 2023b). Several scholars have defined EMI, here we provide a definition suggested by Dearden (2015). She defines it as ‘the use of English language to teach academic subjects in countries and jurisdictions where the first language (L1) of the majority of the population is not English’ (p. 2). EMI has evolved as a very important area of research over the last couple of decades, drawing the interest of applied linguists, sociolinguists, educational linguists, and linguistic anthropologists, who have documented various aspects of EMI, including policy, processes (political and ideological), motivations, stakeholders’ perceptions, and practices. Irrespective of the reasons, the ‘shift from studying English as a foreign language to using English for the study of academic content’ in universities worldwide has gained momentum with a growing number of research studies in this area (Kamaşak et al., 2021). A larger chunk of research has paid attention to understanding academic practices and challenges that EMI has posed in different contexts, including Asia (Kirkpatrick, 2012; Kirkpatrick & Bui, 2016; Kirkpatrick & Liddicoat, 2019; Sah & Fang, 2023a, 2023b). Several drivers motivate the use and introduction of the EMI and what some describe as the Englishization of Asian universities. These include but are not limited to promoting content and language-integrated learning, internationalization, student exchanges, teaching and research materials, staff mobility, graduate employability, university rankings, and opening the market for international students (Galloway & Rose, 2021;Kirkpatrick, 2012; Sah & Fang, 2023b; Shimauchi, 2018). These developments have also constituted a ‘neoliberal race’ (Sah & Fang, 2023a). The term ‘race’ in the neoliberal perspective refers to the increasing competition among Asian universities for the rapid spread of English as a medium of instruction as more a political and economic ideology to compete for international students, higher university ranking, international partnerships, and economic gains from the globalized free market than an academic or educational choice. For example, countries such as Malaysia, China, and Japan took to large-scale EMI policies and internationalization of different programs to attract foreign students and thus make, among others, financial gains (Gill, 2004; Huang & Curle, 2021; Sah & Fang, 2023a).

Following the widespread EMI trend in Asia, Kazakhstan, the largest and strategically positioned post-Soviet country, also launched a trilingual policy along with ambitious EMI reforms across schools and universities to catch up with the global cultural economy to stay competitive, and develop a competitive human capital (Agbo & Pak, 2017; Karabassova, 2021; Tajik et al., 2022. ). For instance, the government of Kazakhstan under the former President Nursultan Nazarbayev initiated a trilingual policy: Kazakh as the state language, Russian as the regional language for interethnic communication, and English as the international language for integration into the global community (Tajik et al., 2022). This policy was termed as the ‘trinity of languages’. Nazarbayev understood that the English language would give Kazakhstan a competitive advantage as he saw English as an important vehicle that could help boost Kazakhstan's socioeconomic, educational, and scientific advancement. His vision is manifested in his speeches, as he once declared,

A nation that does not have access to main information cannot be competitive. This is the law of the twenty-first century. Therefore, citizens working in science, medicine, and civil service should rapidly learn English. I want to say to teachers and parents that the field of education should be responsible for this issue (cited in Karabassova, 2020).

Although English has been taught as a subject in the foreign language departments of Kazakhstani universities since the Soviet era, a rapid growth in EMI programs and universities has happened following the trilingual policy. Following this policy, several ambitious initiatives were taken towards the internationalization of Kazakhstani higher education, which, in turn, led to a significant increase in the number of EMI programs at Kazakhstani universities. As a result, the number of master’s programs taught entirely in English increased from 560 in 2002 to 3,701 in 2011, and the number of university departments that provide undergraduate and graduate programs in EMI increased from 42 departments in 2015 to 57, with eight universities delivering their courses in English in the 2018-2019 academic year (Tajik et al., 2022; Zhetpisbayeva & Shelestova, 2015). However, as Bradford (2016) argues, effective implementation of the EMI policy requires more than ‘simply switching the vehicle of communication and continuing as usual’ (cited in Kamaşak et al., 2021, p. 1). For the successful enactment of the EMI policy, careful planning, appropriate EMI capacity-building at universities, and adequate English language proficiency in the country are prerequisites. Ironically, these requirements were not met before launching the EMI programs in Kazakhstani universities. The EMI policy was launched rather haphazardly, without considering the capacity and preparedness of the local universities (Karabassova, 2020). Karabassova further argues that the policymakers are still confused about whether to place more emphasis on the English language or Russian or Kazakh. When there was public criticism about the EMI policy, the government tried to relax the policy by allowing universities to teach one or two STEM subjects in English and the rest in Russian and Kazakh. When the public outcry settled down, the authorities tried to focus on English again. This kind of tentative approach to the policy and shifting priorities have led to the lack of a uniform policy for admissions to EMI programs at universities. As Tajik et al. (2022) affirm, except for three relatively new EMI universities which have stringent admission criteria, including a 6.0 to 6.5 IELTS score for masters and 7.0 to 7.5 for PhD admissions, the rest of the public sector universities neither have a clear-cut English language threshold for admissions nor do they have an adequate number of instructors who could teach in English (Karabassova, 2020). As a result, despite implementing the trilingual policy for over a decade, Kazakhstan still does not have adequate EMI capacity and uniform admission and graduation policies at the local universities (Tajik et al., 2022; Karabassova, 2020). There is inadequate English language proficiency in the country, mainly because English remains out of reach to the majority of the population, with the country standing at the bottom of the list in the global English proficiency ranking (Ahn & Smagulova, 2022). One of the reasons for this low English proficiency is that the country remained under the rule of the Soviet Union for over two and a half centuries. Therefore, the Russian language still dominates even decades after the country’s independence (Tajik et al., 2022).

Despite the policy-related issues discussed above, EMI is a reality, and it will continue to spread across Kazakhstan and the CIS region, mainly because of the perceived or implied benefits of EMI and the competition over, among others, publishing in internationally recognized journals, enrolling international students, hiring international faculty, and building partnerships with top research universities (Tajik et al., 2022). These benefits, however, are accompanied by numerous tensions and challenges, particularly in a country like Kazakhstan, where the education system still carries some of the Soviet legacies and is under the influence of the Russian language (Agbo et al., 2022; Kerimkulova et al., 2023). There is a tension that an uncritical and rather romanticized use of EMI as a tool for internationalization may lead to marginalization of the local languages and cultures (Tajik et al., 2023). In addition to these tensions, both the students and instructors entering EMI universities in Kazakhstan face numerous linguistic challenges, particularly in academic reading and writing in English, due to their limited English language proficiency and lack of exposure to English environment in their previous studies (Agbo et al., 2022; Tajik et al., 2022).

Keeping in view the above-mentioned situation, there is a need for more research and a deeper understanding of important stakeholders’(teachers and students) experiences around the transition to EMI in general and especially their academic English, such as reading and writing skills. This is an important area of inquiry within EMI research, as indicated by Ernesto Macaro, a renowned expert and researcher of the EMI phenomenon. For instance, Macaro, cited in Sah (2022), presented his idea of the future research agenda for EMI research by suggesting that we have now ‘asked a lot of questions about how they feel about EMI, but we have not actually asked what challenges they face and how they deal with those challenges’ (p. 128). Therefore, the current research project aimed to investigate the nature and forms of challenges faced by Kazakhstani students in their academic reading and writing at the selected EMI universities. Understanding the challenges faced by students may help policymakers revisit EMI policies at the macro-level and implementation practices because ‘the understanding of EMI at the policy level often does not reflect the struggles teachers and students experience at the micro-level’ (Tajik et al., 2022, p. 13). As Hamid, Nguyen, and Baldauf (2013) argue, a rather simplistic understanding of and approach to the medium of instruction can result in pursuit of cheap solutions to a highly complex language problem. Therefore, the current study aimed to develop an in-depth understanding of the academic reading and writing-related challenges faced by students to help university leadership, instructors, and preparatory programs in Kazakhstan as well as in other countries to provide timely support and appropriate resources to students for the study of complex academic content in English. Such an in-depth analysis of the challenges and complexities on the ground will help the concerned policymakers and implementers of EMI programs to understand that the successful enactment of EMI entails more than simply switching the vehicle of communication and continuing as usual (Bradford, 2016).

Theoretical underpinnings

In theoretical terms, we look at the EMI policy in general, and that of the academic English challenges of university graduates in particular through the prism of policy and planning to analyze how students and teachers within the given universities understand the transition to EMI policy, how they perform in their academic English (reading and writing), how prepared they are for negotiating the challenges, what kind of support they currently have, and what kind of support they might need to cope with the demands and expectations of the policy. A policy and planning lens can be helpful in this analysis because the way in which the EMI policies are formulated, implemented, and executed in the universities has implications for the end-users, teachers, and students. How effectively the policy may shape largely depends on the role of the policies, the policymakers, and policymaking. As Spolsky (2009) theorizes, language policy and planning is entirely about ‘choices’ (p. 1). Decisions about the choices, decision-making processes and decision-makers constitute ‘the heart of all Language Policy and Planning’. Thus, to understand the workings of Language Policy and Planning (LPP henceforth), it is critically important for LPP researchers and all others concerned to ‘focus on who makes decisions, how they are made and what characterizes the decision-making process’ (Spolsky, 2009, p. 1). Research now suggests that language policy and planning is a rather complex, dynamic, and multilayered phenomenon (Hornberger & Johnson, 2007; Johnson, 2013). Therefore, it is crucial to scrutinize the policy from the viewpoint of the end-users, such as teachers and students, to make sense of how they receive the policy, how the making of the policy affects them, and, more importantly, how well the end-users find themselves and their performances aligned/misaligned with the expectations of the policy and the promised benefits. As the literature suggests, whether researchers adopt an ethnographic, phenomenological, qualitative case study, quantitative, or mixed-method approach, they should deeply engage with the complex issues of how language policy and practice align and complement each other to achieve the desired outcomes (Hornberger, 2020; Hult & Johnson, 2015; McCarty, 2011).

Does policy and practice help achieve the outcomes desired by the policymakers? If not so, why, and what factors constrain the achievements? In their seminal work, Kaplan et al. (2013) provided a list of reasons and factors that lead to language education policy failures titled as ‘Why educational language plans sometimes fail’. These factors include insufficient time allocation towards language learning, inappropriate and insufficient teacher training, inappropriate educational material, conflict between teaching methodology and the desired outcomes, insufficient resource allocation to the need of student population, inconsistency, and problematic commitment to the continuity of the policy, and students’ unpreparedness for early language instruction. These factors bring us to the fundamental question of how policymaking takes place. How centralized or consultative the processes of policymaking are. Is the policy shaped in a top-down or a bottom-up manner? How connected and coordinated are different players at the macro, meso, or micro level in the policymaking and implementation processes, and how crucial can the role of different actors be in the effective formulation and implementation of the policies? Findings from a large body of empirical research suggest that ‘Macro language policies are not necessarily enough’, ‘Local language policies are not necessarily enough either, and ‘Meso-level language policies matter’ (Johnson, 2013, p. 110). It means the role of the local actors can be significant; therefore, the study and analysis of the LPP requires an ‘integrative and dynamic approach’ (Menken & Garcia, 2010a). This approach is in line with the ‘public sphere paradigm’ (Johnson, 2018; Tollefson, 2013), in which the LPP is examined from the actual practices of the local stakeholders/agents and communities within the local sites because local educators/teachers can negotiate language policies in schools; they can act as policymakers (Menken & Garcia, 2010a). This approach provides researchers with an opportunity to understand the complex, multilayered, and dynamic process of policy interpretation, appropriation, and implementation (Baldauf & Liddicoat, 2008; Hornberger & Johnson, 2007; McCarty, 2011; Menken & Garcia, 2010b). Underpinned by the above theoretical premise, we will bring the perspectives of the real policy implementors such as teachers and students to see how the policy stands on the ground regarding the desired outcomes and the promised benefits as the policymakers associate the EMI policy.

To sum up, we used the language policy and planning (LLP) lens to explore how the EMI policy was developed and enacted and the relationships between the policy planning and the linguistic challenges faced by students in EMI universities in Kazakhstan. The purpose of using this theoretical framework was to develop an in-depth understanding of the complex interplay among policy approach, planning, policy implementation, the academic and linguistic challenges the end-users (students) encounter and the support available to them in the EMI universities in Kazakhstan. This framework helped us develop a comprehensive understanding of the shortcomings in the approach taken to conceptualize and develop the EMI policy, the issues in its implementation, and the gaps between policy aspirations and enactment on the ground due to the centralized, top-down policymaking which did not consider the English language proficiency, readiness, and overall capacity of the end-users of this policy. As a result, the end-users (students) are grappling with critical academic and linguistic issues, including a lack of English language proficiency, insufficient academic literacy skills, and a turbulent transition to EMI environment at their universities. Although the focus of this paper is on students’ challenges with academic reading and writing in EMI programs, there is a direct link between language policy and planning (LPP) and the root causes of these challenges. If the policymakers had taken into account the end-users’/implementers’ views and voices, and if they had built appropriate EMI capacity in universities before going for the ‘wholesale’ implementation of the policy, most of the challenges associated with academic reading and writing would not have transpired.

The study

The data reported in this paper is part of a 3-year long large-scale study conducted in eight universities in five major cities (Astana, Almaty, Shymkent, Atyrau, and Kokshetau) of Kazakhstan. Funded and managed by the Nazarbayev University, this study is carried out by a team of researchers from three universities representing both the public and private sector higher education institutions in Kazakhstan.

Research methods

The data reported in this paper were collected through a sequential mixed-methods research design (Creswell, 2014). The rationale for using this research design was to investigate multilingual students’ challenges with academic reading and writing in EMI universities from multiple perspectives and ways to develop an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon. As the literature suggests, the combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods helps researchers ensure confirmation/corroboration/triangulation of data from one method with those of the other (Creswell, 2021). The complementarity of data obtained from both methods to elaborate on a finding and its meaning is another reason for using a mixed method design (Halcomb et al., 2023). Creswell (2021) also argues that findings obtained from one method of data collection may lead to questions or gaps that can be addressed by another method. Similarly, the combination of the quantitative and qualitative methods can also help expand the depth, rigor, and scope of research findings and conclusions (Halcomb et al., 2023). Keeping in view these benefits of mixed methods design, we first administered an anonymous online survey to a large sample to get firsthand knowledge of the linguistic challenges faced by students across the selected universities. Based on the survey data, we developed interview questions and conducted in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with a smaller sample size to explore the phenomenon in greater depth (Creswell, 2014). The following main questions guided this research:

1. How are graduate students’ experiences of transition to EMI studies relevant to understanding the EMI policy in Kazakhstan?

2. What kind of academic and linguistic challenges do these students face in their academic reading and writing in English medium universities in Kazakhstan?

3. How can these students’ experiences and the challenges they face inform the EMI policy?

The study was conducted in eight purposefully selected universities from across Kazakhstan. Although as many as 17 universities were invited to participate in the study, only 10 of them expressed interest and eight have so far participated. The invitation letters along with detailed information about the nature, purpose, design, ethical considerations, and potential benefits of the study were sent to the rectors (gatekeepers) of the universities, which offer a wide range of graduate programs in English in the areas of social sciences, humanities, medical sciences, engineering, and other disciplines. The selected universities represent both the public and private education sectors in Kazakhstan. Their participation is voluntary and informed as they were provided with consent forms having all necessary details about the study. Moreover, the study was approved by the Nazarbayev University Institutional Research Ethics Committee on February 17, 2021.

Participants

Using a purposeful sampling method for the qualitative part of the study, a total of 108 participants, including 65 graduate students, 37 instructors, and six program directors /deans were recruited. For the quantitative part, an online survey questionnaire was administered to over 600 master and PhD students currently studying in EMI programs at the selected universities. Only 348 students filled the survey. Of these, 69 (19.8%) are male, 223 (64.1%) are female, and 56 (16.1%) did not disclose their gender. However, due to missing information and incomplete response from a significant number of students, only 269 complete responses were analyzed. As presented in Tables 1 and 2 below, the pool of participants, particularly the students, is richly diverse in terms of different disciplines, degree programs, age groups, regions, gender, and education and linguistic backgrounds. About 57.2% of participants speak three or more languages, with Kazakh and Russian being the first language for 60.1% and 19.0% of respondents, respectively. As many as 30.7% of participants studied in English medium undergraduate programs, and only a small number of them (n = 22, or 6.3%) studied overseas. Moreover, the participating students and instructors represented different departments, including Education, Engineering, English Language, International Relations, Journalism, Literacy, and Languages, whereas the students were enrolled in master (n = 228) and PhD (n = 43) programs across various disciplines with social sciences, STEM subjects and others. Female participants dominated the pool of survey and interview participants.

Table 1. Demographic information about survey participants.

Demographics	Number	Percentage	Demographics	Number	Percentage
Total Participants 348			Age Group
Gender			Years
Male	69	19.8%	18–25	111	31.9%
Female	223	64.1%	26–35	123	35.3%
Did not answer	56	16.1%	36–45	51	14.7%
Regions			46–55	07	2.0%
Rural	48	13.8%	Did not answer	56	16.1%
Urban	214	61.5%	Year of study at current university
Semi-rural	19	5.5%	0–2	182	52.3%
Semi-urban	11	3.2%	2–5	61	17.5%
Did not answer	56	16.1%	5–7	33	9.5%
Degree Program			7 and above	14	4.00%
Master	228	65.5%	Did not answer	58	16.7%
PhD	43	12.4%	Discipline / Field of study
Other	17	4.9%	Education	132	37.9%
Did not answer	60	17.2%	Medical Sciences	13	3.7%
Medium of instruction of undergraduate degree			Engineering	18	5.2%
Kazakh	57	17.8%	Natural Sciences	03	0.9%
Russian	77	24.1%	Social Sciences	93	26.7%
English	91	28.4%	Other	31	8.9%
Other	36	11.3%	Did not answer	58	16.7%
Did not answer	59	18.4%	Country of undergraduate degree
No of languages spoken fluently			Kazakhstan	263	75.6%
1	07	2.0%	Russia	05	1.4%
2	82	23.6%	Overseas	22	6.3%
3	153	44.0%	Did not answer	58	16.7%
4	46	13.2%	Language test taken for current degree program
Did not answer	60	17.2%	IELTS	127	36.5%
Mother tongue			TOEFL	09	2.6%
Kazakh	209	60.0%	GRE	04	1.1%
Russian	66	19.0%	GMAT	05	1.4%
English	02	0.6%	Other	137	39.4%
Other	13	3.7%	Did not answer	66	19.0%
Did not answer	58	16.7%
Language most frequently used outside the classroom
Kazakh	90	25.9%	Russian	180	51.7%
English	15	4.3%	Other	06	1.7%
Did not answer	57	16.4%

Table 2. Demographic information about interview participants.

S.No	Details	Students	Instructors	Program Directors	Total	Male	Female
1	Number of participants attended interviews
	Individual Interviews	7	7	6	20	6	14
	Focus Group Interviews	58	30	0	88	22	66
	Total	65	37	6	108	28	80
2	Regions
	Almaty	11	20	2	33	7	26
	Astana	33	5	1	39	10	29
	Shymkent	8	3	2	13	5	8
	Atyrau	3	4	1	8	0	8
	Kokshetau	10	5	0	15	6	9
3	Subject areas
	Social Sciences & Humanities	34	22	3	59	15	44
	STEM	10	4	0	14	9	5
	Others	21	11	3	35	4	31
4	Study programs
	PhD	26			26	9	17
	Masters	39			39	11	28

Data collection and analysis procedures

Hosted in Qualtrics, the online survey questionnaire contained 45 closed-ended and five open-ended questions to capture the participants’ perceptions and attitudes towards EMI, the challenges they face with academic reading and writing, and the support they get to overcome the challenges in their EMI programs. The survey used Likert scales from 1 to 3, where 1 stands for ‘strongly agree’ or ‘extremely satisfied’, 2 for ‘somewhat agree/satisfied,’ and 3 for ‘disagree’ or ‘dissatisfied. The survey consists of an informed consent and three sections:(i) demographic information about the participants, (ii) student EMI experiences and challenges, (iii) English language-related support available to students. The quantitative data collected from the survey was then analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 23.0.

In addition to the survey, qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews in one-on-one (n =  20) and focus-group (n =  24) formats. The main aims of the semi-structured interviews were to obtain in-depth discussions with the participants and obtain rich data and meaningful responses to the study question, as such interviews are flexible and a familiar form of interaction for most people. Although the interviews were planned to be conducted in face-to-face mode, however, due to the Covid-19 pandemic and travel restrictions, some of the individual interviews (n = 7) were held online. The average length of each individual interview and focus-group discussion was approximately 60 and 75 min respectively. The participants were provided with detailed information about the purpose, focus, and length of interviews beforehand. Each participant signed a consent form ahead of the interviews. To ensure active participation, all interviews were conducted in the participants’ preferred language (Kazakh, Russian or English).

With prior permission from the participants, all interviews and focus-group discussions were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and translated by research assistants fluent in all three languages (Kazakh, Russian and English). The transcribed data were analyzed and coded inductively, i.e. no preconceived codes, categories, or themes were applied; instead, the data were broken down into discrete units and text segments. Each was highlighted with a color code and then labelled with a phrase or word that captured the meaning of the highlighted text segment. Such codes were generated from the data itself and then organized into different categories through constant comparison to identify similarities, differences, and emerging patterns. The codes were then organized into one category giving birth to the first theme ‘Students’ notions of academic reading and writing in an EMI context’. Similarly, other themes and sub-themes discussed below were generated from the data through the inductive coding system (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

Findings

This section reports the findings presented and discussed into three main themes that emerged from the data: students’ notions of academic literacy in EMI context: insights into EMI policy, academic reading-related challenges, and academic writing-related challenges. We use direct quotes from the individual (Ind) and focus-group (FG) interviews conducted with students and Instructors (Ind-St, FG-St, Ind-Ins) to support the findings.

Students’ notions of academic literacy in EMI context: insights into EMI policy

Before asking students about the academic reading and writing-related challenges they might be facing in their EMI programs of studies, it was useful to explore their perceived notions and attitudes towards academic reading and writing in EMI context and how their notions reflect their own preparedness and thus the EMI policy approach and effectiveness. Table 3 below provides a glimpse into students’ views on academic reading and writing in EMI context, indicating the EMI policy framing without preparation and capacity-building on the ground.

Table 3. Students’ Views on Academic Reading and Writing in EMI Context.

Items	Mean	SD	Distribution of responses (%)
			Agree	Neutral	Disagree
Academic reading and writing are different from general reading and writing	2.9	0.384	92.3	5.4	2.3
My previous academic experience helped me improve my academic reading and writing skills in the English language	2.69	0.644	79.3	9.6	11.1
Academic writing in English is one of the biggest challenges for most students in my cohort	2.15	0.981	39.7	29.9	30.4
Academic reading and writing in the English language are more difficult than in the Kazakh or Russian language	1.9	0.935	38.7	14.5	46.8
The reading, comprehension, analysis, and synthesis of the literature in English is the most difficult part of our Master’s / PhD studies	1.88	0.893	45	20.4	34.6

A striking majority of the survey participants (92.3%) perceived that academic reading and writing in EMI differ from general reading and writing. This was further explored in the focus-group interviews in which students identified the differences they see between academic reading and writing in EMI and other programs, as one of them admitted, ‘Only in the current EMI program, I learnt about what research is, how to do it, and how to work with APA.¹ These were never taught in the Kazakh and Russian-medium courses’ (FG-St. 1). Other students also observed that the overall academic atmosphere in the EMI program is different from what they had experienced in the Russian and Kazakh-medium programs. They claimed that only in the EMI courses were they exposed to such skills as ‘critical thinking’, ‘critiquing articles’, and ‘creative writing’—skills not taught in their previous academic courses. This shows that the students were academically not ready to enter EMI studies as they did not have the required academic literacy skills and exposure to the EMI context. Despite knowing the inadequacy of English language proficiency in the country, especially in higher education institutions, the policymakers did not consider the ground realities before shifting the medium of instruction to English. However, the survey results showed that about 79.3% of the respondents with the second-highest mean score (M = 2.69, SD =  0.664) were able to make some use of their past experiences in improving their academic literacy skills in the EMI courses. The next item with the third highest mean score (M = 2.15, SD =  0.981) reveals that students perceive academic reading and writing in English as one of the most difficult parts of their graduate studies. As many as 38.7% of the students believe that academic reading and writing in the EMI programs are far more difficult than in the Kazakh or Russian-medium programs. Similarly, 45% of the survey respondents, with a mean score of 1.88, agreed that reading comprehension, analysis, and synthesis of literature in English was the most difficult part of their studies. During a focus-group interview with students, one of them stated, ‘The sources and materials [readings] in English are very rich [as] compared to those in Kazakh and Russian, but we cannot use those materials due to language [barriers]’ (FG-St. 3). These results are congruent with other studies that have reported about students’ views, approaches, struggles, and anxieties about academic reading and writing in EMI context, especially when the language policy did not take into account students’ previous experiences and capacity in EMI. For example, students from Saudi Arabia and South Korea associated EMI, particularly academic reading and writing in English, with psychological problems such as anxiety, frustration, and fear of failure (Al Zumor, 2019; Choi, 2021). Singh (2019) reports that international students in Malaysian universities perceived academic reading and writing in EMI programs to be more enriching but, at the same time, more demanding and complex than in other programs. The root causes of the challenges faced by students are linked to the top-down language policy and planning, which often fails to predict and address such challenges on the ground. For example, Tajik et al. (2023) state that the EMI policy in Kazakhstan was framed and implemented ‘rather abruptly without any systematic piloting or a careful analysis of teachers’ English language needs and their pedagogical concerns’ (p. 1). However, a more in-depth investigation into students’ perceptions and practices of EMI will provide useful insights into the complex and dynamic relationships that may exist among students’ espoused beliefs and practices of EMI, the challenges they face, and how they cope with them.

Challenges associated with EMI program

Analysis of both survey and interview data uncovered several areas of difficulties students face during their studies in an EMI context. These include a turbulent transition to EMI and challenges associated with academic reading and writing in English.

The turbulent transition from previous education to the EMI context

As the demographic data presented in Table 1 shows, 75.6% of the survey respondents had received their undergraduate degrees from Kazakhstan, and about 69.3% of them had studied in mediums of instruction other than English. These statistics indicate that a vast majority of students did not have a strong background and appropriate preparation for undertaking their studies with English-medium instruction. The data obtained through focus group interviews further explain the gravity of the situation in which these students make a transition to their EMI studies, indicating critical gaps in LPP. For example, one of the students stated, ‘I have never been taught academic reading and writing in Russian. … I never had a course on academic reading and writing, neither [in] Kazakh nor [in] Russian. … Therefore, in the first year, I faced a lot of problems … ’ (FG-St. 4). The fact that 69.3% of these students had done their undergraduate studies in Kazakh – or Russian-medium of instruction, ‘studying in English was very challenging, especially during the first year’ (FG-St. 6) for them in the graduate programs. These students admitted that due to their inadequate English proficiency and lack of exposure to the EMI environment, they faced difficulties in following instructions, comprehending contents, engaging with literature, grasping concepts and ideas from English texts, and articulating their thoughts in English. The following excerpts from the interview transcripts capture the challenges and frustration experienced by of the students:

… it was difficult for me to get into this [EMI] atmosphere of academic studies and read all the research work. The articles were very challenging for me. The terminology did not have any meaning for me at first and then I had to re-read the same article several times (FG-St. 5).

… I had one moment when I just said, ‘okay, now I am quitting’. Because it was impossible to read, understand and discuss all the things in that amount of time. And I was thinking that if I had it in Russian, I would just read quickly and participate in discussions … (FG-St. 8).

The students’ views and experiences of EMI studies and the difficulties they face were supported by the university instructors participating in this study. The interview data obtained from the instructors corroborated with that of students and, thus, confirmed the findings. While sharing his observations and experiences of teaching EMI courses, one of the instructors stated:

They [students] are only pre-intermediate level. But what do we expect from them? We expect from them they could be at the academic level … , but all the students don’t have a graduate level [English] proficiency, and this is a big problem (Ind-Ins 1).

Another instructor also explained that not only do students face difficulties in reading and understanding content in English, but they also feel embarrassed and harassed when they are unable to speak English in front of others. He went on to say:

So, I push them [students] to find [answers] in Russian or Kazakh but explain in English. So, for them, expressing themselves in Kazakh is better than trying to speak and read incorrectly in English, and [be] ashamed in front of others. Asking them in English is like harassing them [laughs] (Ind-Ins 2).

These excerpts reveal that the students had a rather chaotic transition from the Kazakh or Russian-medium instruction and pedagogical atmosphere to an English-medium environment, mainly because of the rather abrupt implementation of the EMI policy, which did not provide these students and instructors with appropriate time and support to improve their English language proficiency. It is evident in the interview excerpts that the shift to the EMI entailed a wide range of difficulties and challenges that students faced in their academic, psychological, and social life domains. For example, the students’ inability to understand instructions in English, lack of reading comprehension, and failure to express themselves and articulate their views in English were some of the biggest challenges in the academic domain. Similarly, the challenges students faced in the psychological domain included feeling stressed out, thinking of quitting the program, and having doubts about their abilities. Furthermore, the students also admitted that they faced such challenges in the social domain as lacking a sense of self-worth, inability to communicate with professors with foreign accents, and avoiding interactions and leadership initiatives. These challenges appear to have emerged from multiple factors, including lack of preparation, ability and performance deficiency, inadequate English and academic literacy skills, and lack of English language support in their new environment. These are difficulties that could have been addressed to a great extent, if not fully, by a carefully conceived, thoroughly planned, and democratically framed EMI policy.

Academic Reading challenges in the EMI context

A vast majority of students and instructors in this study expressed the difficulties faced by students in their academic reading in EMI programs. For example, the survey data revealed that 66.9% of students were either dissatisfied or only somewhat satisfied with their English language proficiency; 65.3% were either dissatisfied or only somewhat satisfied with their academic reading and writing skills in English; 51.8% were not confident to make an oral presentation in English; and 72.6% did not enjoy reading and writing in English. The students attributed these difficulties to a lack of prior exposure to English, especially academic reading and writing in English, insufficient vocabulary and comprehension, and a huge amount of reading, causing stress to the students. Despite these gaps and deficiencies in terms of English language proficiency on the ground, the EMI policy was launched without the critical capacity required for the successful implementation of the policy. The following excerpts from the interviews conducted with students capture a more holistic picture of the challenges faced by students in their academic reading in the EMI context:

… the language [English] was very specific, with specific terminology related to this program and this field of research. I remember I had spent a lot of time reading until very late at night and woke up the next day very early to cover all these readings but still could not cover most (FG-St – 9).

And in the first year, I would read line by line. … I have a lot of incomprehensible words when I read. … I just do not have enough vocabulary. I read a word, then translate it and then read the next. Therefore, I couldn’t connect the ideas [and] that’s why it takes me long time to understand the materials (FG-St – 11).

These excerpts reveal an array of linguistic challenges arising from students’ insufficient proficiency in English coupled with a lack of preparation and capacity-building for EMI studies. The data also raises pedagogical concerns in the EMI programs where students were flooded with heaps of readings in English, despite knowing that a vast majority of students had serious difficulties in reading comprehension. One of the students complained, ‘We had courses where there were too many readings, and it was overwhelming. Because it was impossible to read, understand and discuss all the things in that amount of time’ (FG-St -10). The reading-related challenges were also echoed by two other students who discerned:

Compulsory, suggested, optional, different … millions of readings. When it is a small amount of reading, you know that you can handle [it] and you start reading [it]. But when there are millions [of reading], you just think why would I even start [reading]? Is it possible to read all of this? (FG-St -12).

I read a book in English, and I understood the main idea. However, I downloaded and read the Russian version of that book, and I understood that I [had] missed so many things when I read that book in English. I found much more information when I read the Russian version (FG-St -13).

The empirical data obtained from the EMI instructors also supported and reinforced the findings related to academic reading challenges. The instructors confirmed that most students in their courses are unable to read fluently, comprehend the meaning of what they read, and grasp the main ideas from the readings, mainly because of their inadequate academic literacy skills, low language proficiency, and lack of exposure and practice in academic reading. The following excerpts from two of the interviews with instructors further explain the struggles the students go through in EMI courses:

I have many students who read like, The, Study, Aims, To, Understand … [reading with pauses after every word]. I try to ignore [it] but I know they feel stressed when they cannot read and understand words. … it is a mentally disturbing situation for them, and they feel embarrassed (Ind-Ins 3).

Yeah, reading is challenging. … and the point is that our students don’t really like reading. I mean it is different from Western higher education, where you read a lot. … it is very difficult to explain to our students that they must read a book or even a chapter (Ind-Dean 1).

These excerpts reveal not only a multiplicity of challenges emanating from students’ low English proficiency, but also the implications for the EMI policy. The main challenges, which include poor vocabulary and comprehension, underdeveloped academic literacy skills, and inability to manage the quantity of reading, were due mainly to a lack of rich reading culture and linguistic resources in their previous programs (Ahn & Smagulova, 2022). As reported, most students spend considerable time learning technical vocabulary, comprehending course readings, and translating texts into local languages to better understand the readings. Tajik et al. (2022) argue that Kazakhstani students face difficulties in grasping central ideas from readings due to ‘low reading speeds, high volume and length of academic texts, lack of time for reading or lack of practice, and limited access to credible sources’ (p. 9). The problem is exacerbated further when the materials students are required to read are of different academic genres from what they used to read before, especially research articles that appear difficult to comprehend (Eusafzai, 2022). Consequently, understanding such dense and complex materials becomes not only challenging and time-consuming but also very stressful for the students. These findings also expose the gaps and oversights in the EMI policy, which did not seem to have assessed the linguistic resources, support mechanisms, and overall EMI capacity at local universities (further analysis of the LPP is done in the discussion section below).

Academic writing challenges in the EMI context

The writing-related challenges faced by students are similar to, and in most cases, more severe than the reading-related challenges discussed above. The participants admitted that they struggle with academic writing due to a lack of rich vocabulary, unfamiliarity with appropriate terminology, poor lexicon, and inability to critically analyze and use literature, grammar mistakes, and syntactic-related issues. These issues negatively affect the participants’ writing quality, as one of the students stated, ‘I have problems with vocabulary because I don’t know a lot of words in English that I want to use to make my writing better. I use and know only basic words and repeat the same words’ (FG-St. 5). Other students shared that they get frustrated when they are unable to articulate what is in their minds, especially when they have great ideas and strong arguments but cannot put them in writing due to language barriers. Such difficulties affect not only students’ feelings but also their grades in course assignments and final exams, as the following quotes from students reveal:

… I get so sad sometimes because I have great ideas, but I cannot express them well in writing. I cannot make it understandable to the readers. That’s why I get lower marks because I fail to express my ideas correctly (FG-St. 8).

I do not have [sufficient] vocabulary to express my thoughts. I also do not have enough practice and experience with [writing]. … I can understand what others say, but I cannot respond and write it, because my vocabulary is not perfect and limited (FG-St. 10).

The data confirmed that about 69.3% of the students who studied in the Kazakh- or Russian-medium of instruction in their undergraduate programs did not have exposure or orientation to academic writing, let alone having the knowledge of writing genres and critical thinking and analytical skills required in graduate studies at EMI universities. Most of the students admitted that they were unfamiliar with the basics of academic writing, such as APA style, literature review, paraphrasing, synthesis, citations, and references, to name a few. The following excerpt from an interview transcript captures the struggles students go through in academic writing in English:

Usually, professors ask us to explain [critique] scientific articles. The articles are written very academically, and we need to explain them in simple words and explain each keyword. Memorizing and repeating the sentences from the text is not acceptable. Therefore, paraphrasing and explaining those key ideas and key terms using your own words is challenging.

The data presented above, on the one hand, reflects the struggles, frustration, and stress students experience in EMI studies, including academic writing, and on the other hand, points towards the the ‘geneses’ of these problems in the EMI policy, which we discuss later. The main reasons for students’ struggles are due to their poor English language proficiency, unfamiliarity with literary/writing genres, and lack of practice. This was confirmed by the survey questionnaire in which 69.6% of respondents considered academic writing in English one of the biggest challenges faced by the majority of students in the EMI programs. These challenges are caused by insufficient vocabulary, poor knowledge of grammar, and lack of exposure to academic writing in their previous programs, resulting in poor articulation, analysis, synthesis, and interpretation skills. Other factors contributing to writing-related challenges are a lack of academic reading and confidence to speak in English in class; as one of the students stated, ‘ … I had terrible language barriers. I could not force myself to speak and write in English. I was shy and scared … [as] I was thinking [that] I would be judged for wrong grammar and pronunciation’ (FG-St. 10).

An important finding from the current study is that students in their first semester and year experience far more difficulties in academic writing than those in the second or third year. However, Kamaşak et al. (2021) argue that most academic language-related challenges in EMI studies continue over the years. Most students in the current study complained about their instructors for frequent code-switching during their lectures and for not using English outside the classrooms. Although these students admitted that it was easier to understand the subject content in their L1, they would still prefer their instructors to use only English as they believe this is the only way students would fully immerse into the English language atmosphere. For that reason, the students also would prefer foreign lecturers, as one of them elaborated on it:

Some of the instructors use L1 to explain difficult topics. Of course, they want us to understand the topic better. But it is very distracting when we try to think in English and feel ourselves in an English environment. I wish we had more foreign lecturers; that way we would only study in English.

One of the reasons for the instructors’ code-switching and not using English is their own lack of confidence and proficiency in English. This was evident in the interviews in which over 80% of the instructors chose to speak in their L1. Some of them started in English but switched to Kazakh or Russian as they could not express themselves in English. Although students in Kazakhstan and other countries such as Korea have difficulty following the accents of foreign instructors, they, instead of wanting their instructors to use L1 for better comprehension, prefer English instructions throughout their lessons (Joe & Lee, 2013). Other researchers also provide useful insights into the role of lecturers in the challenges faced by students in EMI contexts around the globe. For example, Tajik et al. (2022) discuss Kazakhstani students’ dissatisfaction with the instructions and feedback provided by instructors in EMI courses. Nevertheless, researchers argue that despite the unavailability of universally agreed benchmarks for instructors’ English language proficiency, it is understood that instructors, regardless of their subject areas, require a high-level English proficiency to teach EMI courses (Macaro, 2018).

Discussion

In this section, we discuss the significance of the findings, considering both empirical data and insights from the literature. As the study’s findings suggest, the experiences of both graduate students as well as instructors provide important data to understand the challenges occurring around what we describe as a ‘turbulent’ transition to the EMI policy and practice in Kazakhstani institutions of higher learning. Overall, the experiences point towards challenges in an effective negotiation of academic literacy (reading and writing). Students’ experiences, as we document in this study, are far from promising. The challenges, as indicated, include a slower learning pace, more time consumption, repetitive memorizing exercises, and insufficient comprehension of the texts (Tajik et al., 2023). Lower linguistic skills make reading overwhelming for them. In the process, inaccessible texts produce anxiety, stress, and embarrassment for most students, leading to serious psychological and emotional breakdowns. Alarmingly, some students felt under-confident about their linguistic and academic abilities to the extent that they even thought of giving up instead of negotiating the challenges of EMI studies. According to instructors, reading is challenging because, on the one hand, students do not fully comprehend. On the other hand, inaccessible texts take the element of enjoyment away. Students are also not used to extensive, lengthy, and intensive readings. For most of them, it is their first encounter with advanced-level academic texts and writing assignments in English. Some other challenges, such as lack of vocabulary, limit their expressions and expressive abilities in writing. In addition, they find academic English much too different and difficult than common or colloquial English. Students’ experiences also suggest that academic English is cognitively more demanding and challenging than in Russian or Kazakh. More importantly, students admit that the lack of training and prior exposure to more technical aspects of academic writing, such as paraphrasing, summarizing, reviewing, synthesizing, critiquing, or other mechanics such as APS style, citations, and referencing, create hardships for most students.

Prior experience and exposure also stand out as a crucial factor in students’ challenges. It is worth noting that over 70% of students participating in the current study did not have prior exposure to EMI in their undergraduate studies, which suggests that their transitions to the EMI environment at the EMI universities are apparently more abrupt than a smooth one. In the same vein, the challenges of the instructors are equally concerning for their insufficient academic English skills and poor command over their subject-specific academic vocabulary, which not only adds to the miseries of the students but also has implications for both the quality and sustainability of EMI programs in Kazakhstan. Data makes a significant revelation in terms of language use and the level of struggle that students experience. Compared to English-only, using familiar or local languages such as Kazakh and Russian can significantly help mediate and access the disciplinary content more clearly, quickly, and easily. In light of the emerging challenges and hardships, we discuss the implications of these findings for policy planning and implementation practices.

Implications for policy and practice

What is the significance of the above findings for policy and practice, and what is the possible way forward for the concerned stakeholders, especially policymakers and university leadership? Contextualizing and taking into consideration the nature of the challenges, we underline the need for a ‘long-term, macro-level policy review’, and ‘immediate, micro-level initiatives and actions’. We elaborate on these points here. We understand that since EMI is a long-term project, it requires a long-term and robust policy and planning. Most problems and challenges reported in the preceding sections require careful reflection and sincere introspection. A holistic approach is needed to understand the root causes of the day-to-day challenges and difficulties teachers and students confront around academic English in the EMI programs. Given the complexity of the challenges, there is a need to approach the problem more deeply and analytically than looking for quick-fixing and superficial solutions. One way to do so may be to track the roots of the current problems in the schooling system, the schooling experiences of the students, and the policies and practices around academic English. We describe the transition to EMI as a turbulent, unplanned, and abrupt act because it barely corresponds to or stays consistent with the English learning and teaching experiences of the Kazakhstani students in schools (Manan et al. 2023). The EMI policy in the universities appears to be inconsistent with the school language policy and teaching and learning practices. The same disconnect also applies to most schools. Therefore, to expect graduate students at the universities to transition smoothly and to cope effectively with the EMI policy, schools must prepare them adequately by providing them with reasonable exposure, resources, and training in academic English. Thus, by the time students step into universities, they will have achieved some foundation in academic English in schools and will be able to do reasonably well in academic reading and writing in English. Therefore, we would suggest that schools’ English language policies may be reviewed in accordance with the needs and demands of the EMI universities. We believe that a strong alignment between school and university language policies with reference to academic English is one of the ways forward for reducing the scale of challenges and hardships that students evidently confront in universities. Practically, it would require building the professional capacity of schoolteachers (and university instructors, for that matter) in academic English, designing a more practice-oriented curriculum and assessment system within the schools, and establishing collaboration between schools and universities on these very aspects. These initiatives are expected to create some form of synergy between schools and related units within the universities and help bridge the existing gaps between the two important educational bodies.

Along with the proposed long-term macro-level policy solutions, we would also propose immediate remedial work around academic writing challenges. This work may be conducted at the meso and micro levels by the university administration/management and concerned classroom teachers. For instance, administratively, universities need to use effective recruitment strategies and establish a clear-cut threshold to recruit students (Tajik et al., 2022; Yessenbekova, 2023). Only those students who can pass the threshold should be accepted to EMI programs, and those students who cannot meet the requirements must take foundation and content-based EAP preparatory courses. Furthermore, in the Kazakhstani context, the universities may run foundation and preparatory courses focusing specifically on developing students’ academic reading and writing skills since these were identified as the most problematic areas. Such linguistic support should start before the program and continue throughout the program to help students further improve their language proficiency (Kaplan et al., 2013). Besides, a more meaningful collaboration between instructors in the English departments/programs and content specialists could also help devise a contextualized policy around the challenges of academic English.

The study’s findings also have important implications for the teacher community. As we noticed, some students and teachers have openly admitted that the use of local languages such as Kazakh and Russian within the classrooms has considerably eased their challenges, and switching to more familiar languages has often helped them access their lectures and course contents easily and effectively. These revelations call for a greater critical multilingual language awareness (García, 2017; Manan & David, 2021) of the teachers and a realization of teacher agency. Teachers need to understand the value of learners’ whole linguistic repertoires and the role their first languages play in a smooth transfer of content in the EMI policy contexts. This suggests that teachers may act proactively by asserting their individual agencies, using their policy negotiation and appropriation strategies to account for their students’ linguistic challenges (Johnson, 2013; Johnson & Freeman, 2010; Manan et al., 2022; Menken & Garcia, 2010a). Therefore, we emphasize that teachers need to realize the pivotal role and potential of pedagogical translanguaging as an immediate strategic resource for effective teaching and learning in such contexts where the official medium of instruction, such as English, causes challenges and barriers to the smooth functioning of the academic activities (Cenoz & Gorter, 2022a, 2022b; García & Lin, 2017). Similarly, students may be sensitized and encouraged to make effective use of the various digital platforms and available mobile and computer-mediated applications such as Grammarly to manage their day-to-day challenges and help themselves build their academic English levels to catch up with the demands of the courses. A more self-reliant, responsive, and agentive response by teachers and students can considerably reduce the onus they currently find in their academic English.

Conclusions

The study concludes that the EMI policy in Kazakhstani universities is apparently fraught with numerous challenges, with learners’ literacy in English being the most recurrent. It is to highlight here that the EMI challenges, especially learners’ complex entanglements with academic literacy in the English language, exist not only in Kazakhstan but a large number of other less developed countries where English has been introduced in the universities are faced with the similar challenges (Tajik et al., 2022; Sah & Li, 2018; Yeo & Newton, 2021). The aspirations for the EMI policy such as ‘greater job prospects, opportunities to study abroad, increased rankings of the institution, increasing opportunities for student mobility, and miraculous improvement in student’s language proficiency’ (Sah, 2022, p. 130); however, there is a need for investigating critically as to whether EMI actually brings these purported benefits and suggests that researchers need to examine the potential disadvantages of EMI as well (Manan et al., 2021; Sah, 2022). Taking a critical look at the situation in the context of the present study, we can conclude that from the perspective of policy and planning, the current EMI policy and practice seem to have failed because the aspirations of the macro-level policy and policymakers are misaligned with the ground realities in the universities. We can see visible policy and preparation gaps. More precisely, the macro-level policy from the top is not in sync with the resources and preparation at the level of the end-users (teachers and students). Therefore, we understand that the policy requires more dynamism, openness, consultation, and coordination at three levels—macro, meso, and micro levels (Baldauf & Liddicoat, 2008; Hornberger & Johnson, 2007; Kaplan et al., 2013; McCarty, 2011; Menken & Garcia, 2010b). This would require a shift from the traditional ‘policy dumping’ (Hamid & Nguyen, 2016; Manan et al., 2023) approach to a ‘non-traditional participation framework’ (Johnson, 2013). ‘Policy dumping’ characterizes a top-down policy planning initiated by macro-level agents such as politicians, and policymakers without taking responsibility for the quality of implementation. According to Hamid and Nguyen (2016), policy dumping is a situation when the ‘traditional policy actors take credit for policy initiation, but the onus of implementation is left with those at the lower strata of the policy hierarchy’ (p. 35). Whereas a ‘non-traditional participation framework’ entails a bottom-up approach towards policy and planning in which,

teachers and administrators engage in egalitarian decision-making and language policy action-research projects—can alter traditional hierarchical decision-making structures and lead to the positioning of teachers as language policy arbiters, not just in policy implementation and classroom teaching, but in creation of bottom-up policy and interpretation and appropriation of top-down policy (Johnson, 2013, p. 100).

This signifies the need for a more inclusive, local, and contextually responsive approach towards policymaking, where actors working at different layers of the policy can engage well, and meaningfully with each other to make correct and realistic analysis of the needs of teachers and students and take practical actions accordingly. In particular, teachers may be given a more active role in the working and implementation of the EMI policy. Finally, we sum up that the ambitious goals of internationalization, global competitiveness, and human capital development through EMI cannot be achieved without careful planning, systematic implementation, and appropriate support mechanisms for students and instructors.

Acknowledgements

The authors greatly appreciate the valuable contributions made by all research participants from the selected universities, the anonymous peer reviewers for their insightful comments, and our team members (Drs Shamatov, Arvatu, Shegebayev, and Zhunussova) who are part of the larger project. We also thank our research assistant (MoldirAblayeva and Malika) who assisted in data collection and translation.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Nazarbayev University’s Collaborative Research Grant (Grant # 021220CRP1322).

Notes on contributors

Mir Afzal Tajik

Mir Afzal Tajik is an Associate Professor at the Nazarbayev University's Graduate School of Education (NUGSE) in Astana, Kazakhstan. His pedagogical and research interests include EMI in higher education, educational leadership and management, improvement of schools, rural education, and teacher education. His current research projects focus on language policy planning, graduate students' struggles with academic English in EMI programs in Kazakhstan, equity and quality issues in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, and educational leadership policies and practices in Kazakhstan and Pakistan. He is the lead editor of the forthcoming book “Redefining educational leadership in Central Asia: Selected cases from Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan” to be published by Emerald Publishing next year. He is also co-editor of the book “Educational Policies in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Tajikistan” published by Oxford University Press, and has contributed several chapters and articles to journals published by Routledge, Sage, Oxford University Press, among others.

Syed Abdul Manan

Syed Abdul Manan is an Associate Professor of the Graduate School of Education at Nazarbayev University. He has vast experience in conducting research and publications in the area of multilingual education. His current research projects include graduate students' struggles with academic reading and writing in English, and tensions between policy aspirations and enactment: investigating institutional and ecological concerns about English Medium Instruction (EMI) in the public schools in Kazakhstan. He has published extensively in most of the top-tier journals, including ‘Current Issues in Language Planning’ in the areas of language education.

Uli Schamiloglu

Uli Schamiloglu is a Full Professor and Director PhD Program at the School of Sciences and Humanities, Nazarbayev University. He also chairs the Department of Kazakh Language and Turkic Studies. His main research interests include the history of the Turkic languages and cultures of the Middle East and Central Eurasia, the socio-economic history of the Middle East and Central Eurasia in the medieval period, the history of Turko-Islamic civilization, and modern intellectual movements among the Muslim Turkic peoples of the Ottoman and Russian Empires.

Gulnara Namyssova

Gulnara Namyssova is a Post-Doctoral Researcher at the Nazarbayev University Graduate School of Education (NUGSE). She received her PhD from Nazarbayev University (Kazakhstan) and MEd from Vanderbilt University (USA). She is currently working as a postdoc researcher at NUGSE. She has published several articles and book chapters with well-known publishers.

Notes

1 APA: American Psychological Association