The implementation of the Bologna process has internationalised higher education institutions in Europe. The recognition of degrees by means of the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS), mobility schemes for students and university staff and the implementation of European projects to encourage quality in teaching and research have made it possible. As an example, Spanish universities have responded to the changing times by designing internationalisation plans focusing on English as a lingua franca. One of the actions taken was the language policy framework for the internationalisation of the Spanish university system of the Spanish Conference of University Rectors (CRUE 2017). It established a series of steps for language training and the accreditation of language competence for students, teaching staff and administrative staff. As a way to reflect on these actions, this volume aims to provide some key issues that are related to the way higher education is internationalised nowadays and the role of English as a medium of instruction (EMI).

Dearden (2014: 6) describes EMI as “the use of the English language to teach academic subjects in countries or jurisdictions where the first language (L1) of the majority of the population is not English”. This implies that higher education institutions offer similar subjects and, thus, can compete with those universities from Anglophone contexts (Cots et al. 2012; Margic and Vodopija-Krstanovic 2018). The positive aspects of offering subjects in English are evident: students are more proficient in an international foreign language, universities can enrol students from many different countries, higher education institutions share their educational models and students can choose from a wider variety of degrees. This may be the reason behind the many studies that analyse EMI implementation in European universities (Lazaruk 2007; Ruiz de Zarobe and Jiménez Catalán 2009; Lasagabaster and Ruiz de Zarobe 2010; Doiz et al. 2012; Paulsrud 2014; Earls 2016; Dafouz and Camacho-Miñano 2016; Breeze and Dafouz 2017; Margic and Vodopija-Krstanovic 2017, 2018), and in other countries from different continents, such as Uganda (Kyeyune 2003), China (Lei and Hu 2014; Li and Ruan 2015), United Arab Emirates (Belhiah and Elhami 2015), Japan (Toh 2016; Bradford and Brown 2017), Vietnam, Pakistan and Cambodia (Fenton-Smith et al. 2017), Korea (Kim et al. 2018), Hong Kong (Kirkpatrick 2010; Lo and Murphy 2010; Kan et al. 2011; Lo and Macaro 2012; Kirkpatrick and Sussex 2012; Du and Jackson 2018), Taiwan (Tsou and Kao 2017) and Cameroon (Kuchah 2018). These studies clearly illustrate the importance of EMI and the worldwide impact of English as an international language, as predicted by Graddol (2006). Most of these studies reflect on the role of English in higher education and analyse the different methodologies applied to the development of foreign language competences that students have to face when being taught and examined in a foreign language. Probyn (2005), Barnard and McLellan (2013), Blaj-Ward (2017) and Macaro (2018) also reflect on language learning in EMI, paying special attention to students’ perceptions. It should be highlighted that one of the key issues in EMI is the role of students and the impact of EMI on the development of learners’ competences.

When exploring the challenges faced by EMI, one recurrent topic is the role of teachers and the way they should be trained to implement EMI in higher education. This aspect is crucial in the sense that EMI teachers should be conscious of their role and of the methodological changes they have to face when preparing their subjects, teaching and assessing EMI. Some researchers have already paid attention to the role of teachers (Llurda 2005; Yassin et al. 2010; Camarrata and Tedick 2012; Dearden 2014) and also to the methodological issues involved in EMI (Genesee 2008; Dalton-Puffer 2011; Dalton-Puffer and Smit 2013) as well as to the importance of the language policies used to implement EMI (Earls 2016). Given the vast amount of literature being devoted to EMI, nobody can doubt its impact on university policies, economic matters and the design of courses devoted to training university staff involved in EMI. This is the reason why this book includes three parts that are critical to understanding the implications of EMI in higher education institutions, that is, language policies, the training of teachers and administrative staff and the methodologies applied in specific settings.

This book sheds new light on the issues that higher education institutions have to face in order to implement EMI subjects and degrees, paying attention to the challenges and problems posed by this new teaching viewpoint. This collection of chapters invites readers to consider critical questions, such as the importance of training administrative staff, the different levels of students’ language proficiency in EMI subjects, the needs in the language training of teachers, and so on. The authors are experienced practitioners that pay particular attention to the problems derived from EMI, but also to its advantages and disadvantages that are described in the different chapters.

The authors of the different chapters in this volume are conscious of the fact that English has gained an important role in different spheres of life over the last few decades. Because of this, English is used as a medium of instruction in secondary and higher education and this topic is of interest for many researchers whose field is language teaching and the different language policies that affect academic organisation at universities. This chapter focuses on three areas that are key for both language teaching staff and administrative staff; the former are in charge of designing academic EMI activities and the latter are the personnel hired by the university to collaborate with teaching staff in EMI activities. In this sense, both groups of university workers are involved in the planning, development and assessment of EMI.

In Part I, named ‘Policy into Practice’, Orduna Nocito and Obernyer, and Sanahuja Vélez, Ribes Giner and Moya Clemente explain the policies of English as a medium of instruction in Spain with some examples that include the application of EMI in higher education focusing language policy making in tertiary education and the impact of EMI on academic outcomes. In the second chapter of this volume, “Coherence in Language Policy Making in Tertiary Education”, written by E. Orduna Nocito and G. Obernyer, the authors highlight the importance of offering the same language policy in Spanish universities. The authors state that this requires immediate attention as it is vital to have the necessary instruments with which to monitor and support the bilingual degree programs established to internationalise university profiles. The chapter focuses on a general requirement deemed necessary by universities, that is, that teachers involved in bilingual degree programs have a C1 level of English language proficiency (CEFR 2001). In this sense, it should be considered in this proposal that the procedure to certify the level is not standard, which results in the recruitment of professors who have neither full English proficiency nor background knowledge and experience in EMI teaching methodology, potentially undermining the quality of EMI classes in higher education. If we consider that students are expected to provide recognised certification of English proficiency to meet the challenges of today’s growing internationalised job market, the same certification should be demanded of those teaching EMI classes. Thus, the aim of this chapter is to describe the process established at the Universidad Francisco de Vitoria and analyse whether EMI teachers and students are required to have the same certificate to certify their English proficiency level. After the analysis of the data compiled by the authors, they observe that some concerns have arisen, such as the fact that the primary focus on oral skills overrides written skills in tertiary education, which has an effect on the written materials presented to and by the students. All in all, this chapter focuses on the implications regarding the effectiveness and quality of teaching-learning outcomes in university bilingual degree programs. Chapter 3, “A Systematic Review of English as a Medium of Instruction in Higher Education Institutions: The Case of a Business School”, whose authors are G. Sanahuja Vélez, G. Ribes Giner and I. Moya Clemente, focuses on the idea that EMI is a global tendency in a growing number of higher education institutions of non-English-speaking countries and is used by universities as an internationalisation and marketing tool. The focus of this chapter is the possible difficulties associated with the language proficiency of the students and teaching faculty, and its impact on the academic outcomes. In order to answer these questions, the authors reviewed the scientific literature published during the past ten years about EMI in higher education institutions and assessed an EMI group in the Bachelor of Business at the Universitat Politècnica de València, included in a High Academic Achievement Program. The findings of this chapter show that EMI led to an improvement in the students’ English language skills, and so learning was not hindered as most of the variables related to international exchanges were significantly higher.

In Part II, which focuses on ‘Training Issues’, Herington, Beaumont and Zabala Delgado describe three things: the need to train the teaching faculty through observation, the study of lecturers’ concerns about their professional role and the needs of the university administrative staff involved in the supervision of EMI su...