Working Papers in Educational

Linguistics (WPEL)
Volume 33
Article 2
Number 1 Spring 2018

4-1-2018

English-Medium Instruction Policies in South

Korean Higher Education
Katherine I. Kang

This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/wpel/vol33/iss1/2

For more information, please contact repository@pobox.upenn.edu.
English-Medium Instruction Policies in South Korean Higher Education
Abstract
With the rise of globalization and the spread of English, English-medium instruction (EMI) has become a
common practice among higher education institutions around the world. In the past two decades, many South
Korean universities have also established and implemented institution-wide EMI policies. Using Ricento and
Hornberger’s (1996) metaphor of the language planning and policy (LPP) onion as a heuristic, this paper
looks at the different LPP layers involved in shaping these institutional EMI policies and describes how the
global EMI phenomenon has been taken up in the South Korean national and institutional contexts.
Furthermore, this paper elucidates the motivations, beliefs, and attitudes of different LPP actors and how they
may overlap or conflict with one another across and within layers. Investigating the multilayered nature of
EMI policies reveals how the unilateral and mandatory nature of initial planning, which failed to take into
account the varying positions of stakeholders, led to many of the problems associated with EMI.

Keywords
language policy, globalization, higher education, South Korea, English-medium

This article is available in Working Papers in Educational Linguistics (WPEL): https://repository.upenn.edu/wpel/vol33/iss1/2

 English-Medium Instruction Policies in
South Korean Higher Education
Katherine I. Kang

University of Pennsylvania

With the rise of globalization and the spread of English, English-medium instruction
(EMI) has become a common practice among higher education institutions around
the world. In the past two decades, many South Korean universities have also
established and implemented institution-wide EMI policies. Using Ricento and
Hornberger’s (1996) metaphor of the language planning and policy (LPP) onion as
a heuristic, this paper looks at the different LPP layers involved in shaping these
institutional EMI policies and describes how the global EMI phenomenon has been
taken up in the South Korean national and institutional contexts. Furthermore,
this paper elucidates the motivations, beliefs, and attitudes of different LPP actors
and how they may overlap or conflict with one another across and within layers.
Investigating the multilayered nature of EMI policies reveals how the unilateral
and mandatory nature of initial planning, which failed to take into account the
varying positions of stakeholders, led to many of the problems associated with EMI.

I
n 2006, the newly appointed president of the Korea Advanced Institute of
Science and Technology, one of South Korea’s most prestigious universities,
announced plans for a series of institutional reforms which received extensive
media coverage and sparked heated debates. Among these reforms was the 100%
English-medium instruction (EMI) policy, which mandated all undergraduate
courses to be taught in English. Although this policy had been controversial from
the start, the backlash against it grew especially harsh following a chain of suicides
by four students and one professor at the university in 2011 (Heo, 2011). While
media reports on the causes of the suicides were mainly based on speculation,
many pointed to the highly competitive and stressful university culture intensified
by the new institutional reforms (e.g., Choi, 2011; Lee, 2011). Concerning the EMI
policy specifically, opinions were mixed over whether it was a direct contributing
factor (Kim, 2011). However, few disagreed that it had created another burden
for students and faculty whose primary language was not English. Thus, the
tragedies ultimately brought EMI to the forefront of the discussion, pressing the
administration to reexamine its rationale and reflect on the effects of the policy.
Although the case above illustrates one of the more extreme approaches, EMI is
a commonly observed practice and growing trend in higher education worldwide
(see Doiz, Lasagabaster, & Sierra, 2013). South Korea is no exception, with the
introduction and rapid proliferation of EMI among its universities starting in the
late 1990s and early 2000s. Due to the widespread popularity of EMI among many
South Korean universities, it has even been described as a sort of “policy fashion”
(Byun et al., 2011, p. 432). However, the complexities of implementing EMI in a
context such as South Korea, where English is not a language used in everyday

Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 33: 31-52, 2018 // www.gse.upenn.edu/wpel

 Working Papers in Educational Linguistics Volume 33

communication, were seldom considered in universities’ initial policy formation

and planning stages. Many were preoccupied with the quantitative expansion
of EMI rather than the quality of learning. As a result, EMI policies often took
different directions than originally envisioned by university administrations
and officials, as problems due to rushed and inadequate preparation frequently
became apparent in practice. In light of this situation, this paper has two aims: (a)
to describe the process by which EMI has come to be accepted in the South Korean
national and institutional contexts and examine the factors which have led to its
varying realizations by different institutions, and (b) to understand the complex
relationships among different language policy actors as well as language planning
goals which contribute to the ongoing debates that exist around EMI policies
in South Korea. By deconstructing the EMI policies to reveal their multilayered
nature, the overarching goal of this paper is to better understand the issue and
discuss future directions for EMI in South Korean higher education.

Conceptual Framework

Over decades of research, scholars have come to understand language

planning and policy (LPP) to encompass not only official, top-down policies, but
also practices employed at the local, classroom, and individual levels (Menken
& García, 2010). In positioning LPP as “a multilayered construct,” Ricento and
Hornberger (1996) propose the metaphor of an LPP onion which highlights how
“essential LPP components—agents, levels, and processes of LPP—permeate and
interact with each other in multiple and complex ways as they enact various types,
approaches, and goals of LPP” (p. 419). Policies are neither formed by a single
actor in isolation nor carried out in an exclusively top-down manner. Rather,
each layer contributes to the shaping of the policy and is affected by other layers
of the onion. Furthermore, actors in the inner layers are not merely recipients
of top-down policies, but have agency in interpreting and implementing them.
In turn, their actions can influence policy formation in the outer layers. Such a
broad conceptualization of LPP urges researchers to account for the complexity
of LPP processes by not only uncovering how top-down policies build structures
to influence individual behaviors, but also by understanding how individuals
may exercise agency in implementation (Johnson, 2013). The multiplicity of layers
(and agents within those layers) ultimately makes a language policy “as dynamic
as the many individuals involved in its creation and implementation” (Menken
& García, 2010, p. 1). Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of a language
planning activity requires an investigation of all the layers involved (Hornberger
& Johnson, 2007). With this in mind, this paper identifies and investigates the
interaction among the following layers of society to detail the case of EMI in
South Korean higher education: the global layer comprising global influences
and processes driving universities to adopt EMI, the national layer including the
South Korean government, the institutional layer of universities themselves, and
individual agents such as faculty members and students.
In addition, this paper seeks to understand the differing language planning
goals that these LPP actors and entities may have. In his framework, Cooper (1989)
presented three types of language planning that each underscore a different aspect
of language being planned: corpus planning and status planning, which were

32
 English-Medium Instruction Policies in South Korean Higher Education

first identified by Kloss (1969), and acquisition planning, which was Cooper’s
addition. Corpus planning concerns the form of a language, status planning the
distribution of functions among languages, and acquisition planning the number
of users of a language (Cooper, 1989). LPP often involves the planning of one or
more of these aspects. This is also the case for South Korean universities’ EMI
policies, which contain elements of both status and acquisition planning: The
policies set the function of English as an instruction medium while also pushing
to increase the number of English users by requiring students to develop the
expected level of proficiency for or through their courses. However, while
identifying language planning types can help us understand the potential scope
of a language policy, they alone do not fully explain the motivations behind LPP
decisions or the directions that they can take (Hornberger, 1994). We also need to
understand “the motivation for setting particular status, corpus, and acquisition
goals and for choosing particular means and the reasons that the means do or
do not effect the goals within a given social context” (Cooper, 1989, p. 182).
Hornberger’s (1994) integrative framework, shown in Table 1, provides a starting
point for reflecting on the various language planning goals associated with a
policy. As the framework demonstrates, various goals exist under each dimension.
In fact, language planning is more likely to be effective “if goals are pursued along
several dimensions at once” (Hornberger, 2006, p. 32). For instance, a university
which sets an interlingual communication goal for their EMI policy will not be
able to effectively achieve this if participants do not know the language. Thus, the
policy may be carried out with the simultaneous goal of second/foreign language
acquisition. This also demonstrates that despite their separate categorizations,
different aspects of language planning, such as status and acquisition planning,
are closely related and often occur together (García & Menken, 2010).
On the other hand, the coexistence of multiple goals can also be a potential
source of conflict (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997). If varying goals are pursued or
given preference by different actors, tensions can exist and pull a language
policy in multiple directions. This is well articulated by Haarmann (1990): “Most

Table 1
Integrative Framework of Language Planning Goals
Approaches
Types Policy planning (on form) Cultivation planning (on function)
Status planning Standardization Revival
(about uses of Officialization Maintenance
language) Nationalization Interlingual communication
Proscription Spread
Acquisition planning Group Reacquisition
(about users of Education/School Maintenance
language) Literature Foreign language/Second
Religion language
Mass media Shift
Work
Corpus planning Standardization Modernization
(about language) Graphization Renovation
Source: Adapted from Hornberger (1994)

33
 Working Papers in Educational Linguistics Volume 33

inconsistencies in practical language planning result from conflicts of interest. It is

a well-known fact that the objectives of language planning are often incompatible”
(p. 123). The EMI case demonstrates that policies will be carried out most
effectively not only when multiple goals are involved, but also when actors are
in agreement about the priority of these goals—a point which will be elaborated
on throughout the paper. Discussion of top-down policies and perspectives will
draw mainly from analyses of government documents and universities’ mid-
and long-term development plans. This will be complemented by a discussion of
individual actors’ viewpoints based on media reports, campus newspaper articles,
and survey results from previous studies which provide a glimpse into the beliefs
and attitudes held by the actors regarding policies formed in the outer layers.

Globalization and the Internationalization of Higher Education

Globalization, or “the shift toward globalized economic, political, and social

relations” (Currie, 1998, p. 2), has had a far-reaching impact across society. Advances
in transportation and communications technologies have resulted in an increasingly
compressed world, transforming the ways in which institutions operate (Mitchell
& Nielsen, 2012). While globalization may create new opportunities and open up
access, it has also perpetuated and widened existing inequalities (Altbach, 2004;
Blommaert, 2010). For instance, in the higher education sector, globalization has
facilitated exchange among scholars and institutions from diverse contexts while
at the same time allowing the dissemination and reinforcement of models and
practices set by the more powerful institutions (Altbach, 2004). In order to adapt to
the changing global environment, many governments and academic institutions
engage in processes of internationalization,1 coming up with various policies and
practices “to cope with globalization and to reap its benefits” (Altbach & Knight,
2007, p. 291). Several scholars have described internationalization as an active
response to globalization (see, e.g., Altbach, 2004; Knight, 1999). That is, although
globalization may be inevitable, internationalization affords governments and
institutions “a significant degree of autonomy and initiative” to “choose the ways
in which they deal with the new environment” (Altbach, 2004, p. 6). However,
Mitchell and Nielsen (2012) also contend that internationalization itself may be a
leading factor furthering the process of globalization, and thus that it should not
be viewed merely as a response.
EMI is viewed as one such internationalization strategy that has been taken
up in a variety of contexts. Governments and universities may promote English
as a medium of instruction in order to adapt to the reality that many prominent
institutions are located in English-speaking countries, many renowned academic
journals are published in English, and English is the most widely spoken second
and foreign language in the world. This strategy, though, may also reinforce the
influence of English in higher education. Coleman (2006) labels this process “the
Microsoft effect” in that “once a medium obtains a dominant market share, it
becomes less and less practical to opt for another medium, and the dominance is
1 
Although the terms internationalization and globalization have sometimes been used interchangeably,
scholars draw a distinction between the two (Altbach, 2004; Altbach & Knight, 2007; Park, 2011;
Teichler, 2004). Internationalization “tends to address an increase of border-crossing activities amidst a
more or less persistence of national systems of higher education” while globalization “tends to assume
that borders and national systems as such get blurred or even might disappear” (Teichler, 2004, p. 7).

34
 English-Medium Instruction Policies in South Korean Higher Education

thus enhanced” (p. 4). As such, the advancement of English in higher education
can be seen not only as a result, but also another cause of English’s global spread
and its high economic and social value unequalled by any other language.
The readiness with which institutions accept the global spread of English
is also closely tied to the spread of neoliberalism and the marketization of
higher education. As an emphasis on free trade and greater mobility pushes
higher education into a global market, academic institutions are increasingly
becoming more like businesses, where “the student has become the customer”
and “universities are no longer institutions but brands” (Coleman, 2006, p. 3).
Particularly, it has been observed that “higher education institutions are developing
a consumerist mentality which transforms education into a product exchangeable
in an open market” (Mitchell & Nielsen, 2012, p. 7). What is more, universities are
not just competing within their own national contexts, as they are now placed on
the same terrain as other universities around the world. This has driven many of
them to adopt EMI as a way to market themselves and appear more appealing
to an international audience. EMI may be used “to attract international students
unwilling to learn the local language and to improve the English-language skills
of domestic students and thus enable them to work in an international arena”
(Altbach, 2004, p. 10).
Clearly, the global spread of EMI cannot be explained solely as a pursuit of
English for its own sake. Cooper’s (1989) argument that language planning is
rarely carried out with purely linguistic goals in mind, and that it is instead often
a means to meet nonlinguistic ends, also applies to EMI policies, which have
been driven largely by nonlinguistic motivations such as a perceived need for
internationalization in the face of globalization. Although this has been identified as
a key rationale for the adoption of EMI in a wide range of contexts, at the same time
the processes by which EMI takes root in different local contexts are unique. Qiang
(2003) notes that “national identity and culture are key to internationalization of
higher education,” as “a country’s unique history, indigenous culture(s), resources,
priorities, etc. shape its response to and relationships with other countries” (p.
249). Thus, in the following section, I will describe the place of English in South
Korea and examine how the South Korean government has encouraged the
internationalization of universities, of which EMI is often a part.

Governmental Internationalization Projects and English in South Korea

Similar to what can be observed in many other parts of the world, South
Korean society places great social value on English. The late 1980s in South Korea
marks a time when awareness of globalization grew, as the country opened itself
up to the world particularly with the hosting of the 1986 Asian Games and the
1988 Olympic Games (Park 2009; Shim & Park, 2008). As Shim and Park (2008)
note, “such international events (and others that followed) were clinched by the
Korean government as important symbolic resources for the construction of a
highly specific connection between globalization, modernization, and English”
(p. 144). This attachment to English was further strengthened when Korea went
through a financial crisis in 1997, and English came to be viewed as necessary for
survival in the competitive international markets (Shin, 2007). According to Kim
and Nam (2007), the financial crisis in particular “uncovered the limitations of a

35
 Working Papers in Educational Linguistics Volume 33

material-oriented manufacturing economy, and the Korean government proposed

a shift to a knowledge-based economy as one of its major policy goals” (p. 123).
In this context, the government pursued several projects as part of its plans to
internationalize universities, as the competitiveness of the nation was seen as
directly linked to the competitiveness of its universities (Park, 2011). As will be
discussed in more detail below, references to English were sometimes subtle, but
the assumption of English’s importance was nevertheless embedded within the
projects. Thus, although there has not been a single unifying government policy
requiring universities to adopt EMI, these projects either directly or indirectly
encouraged universities to do so. For instance, “in hopes of further encouraging
higher education institutions to offer EMI, the Korean government linked its
evaluations for various incentive projects… to the proportion of EMI among all
courses offered by a university” (Byun et al., 2011, p. 435). In what follows, notable
government internationalization projects will be examined in terms of their overall
goals and their stance on EMI.

Brain Korea 21

One of the first major projects to promote the internationalization of universities

was the Brain Korea 21 (BK 21) program, which was launched in 1999. The project
emerged “in response to concern over the relatively low standing of the nation’s
universities and researchers” and sought to “nurture globally competitive research
universities and graduate programs” and “breed high-quality manpower in Korea”
(Seong, Popper, Goldman, Evans, & Grammich, 2008, p. 1). Two phases have been
completed so far—Phase 1, which was carried out from 1999 to 2005, and Phase
2, which was carried out from 2006 to 2012.2 Because it was designed as a way to
enhance South Korean universities’ overall standing in the global community, the
focus of BK 21 was more on internationalization strategies in general rather than
on EMI in particular. As Shin (2009) describes,

To accomplish its goals, the BK 21 program required participating

universities to reform their systems (e.g., admissions, academic standards,
faculty evaluations etc.) according to global standards. Further, to
monitor institutional reforms and research performance, formative
evaluations were conducted annually. Subsequently, some universities
were excluded from the program because of poor performance at the
mid-term evaluations. (p. 671)

Although EMI may not have been a priority in BK 21, there were aspects of
the project that nudged universities to provide EMI courses. For instance,
the evaluation criteria for science and technology programs in BK 21 Phase 1
included shares of foreign language-medium instruction lectures, albeit just
1% (Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development [MEHRD] &
Korea Research Foundation, 2007, p. 626).3 Furthermore, in the selection criteria

2 
A third phase, BK 21+, started in 2013 and is scheduled to be completed in 2020.
3 
The evaluation standards and selection criteria differed for science and technology programs,
humanities and social sciences programs, regional (non-Seoul) programs, and specialized programs.
Interestingly, foreign language-medium instruction was only explicitly included as a criterion for
science and technology programs.

36
 English-Medium Instruction Policies in South Korean Higher Education

for applied science research groups in BK 21 Phase 2, globalization of graduate

education, including “shares of lectures in English only,” “percentage of foreign
faculty,” and “percentage of foreign students,” was weighted 5% (Seong et al.,
2008, p. 217). Although this percentage is small, it demonstrates that EMI was “a
prerequisite for universities wishing to receive government support” (Byun et al.,
2011, p. 435).

Study Korea Project

While BK 21 included EMI as one of its selection and evaluation criteria,

this criterion did not hold a very significant value. Another government
internationalization project where EMI played a more prominent role was
the Study Korea Project. As stated by Byun et al. (2011), it was only then “that
universities began to show a greater interest in EMI,” and EMI began “to assume
a prominent role in Korean universities’ internationalization policies” (p. 435).
Introduced in 2004, the goal of the project was to bring international students to
study in Korean universities with the ultimate goal of reaching 50,000 students by
2010 (MEHRD, 2005); when this goal was achieved earlier than expected in 2007, it
was later modified to 100,000 students by 2012 (Ministry of Education, Science and
Technology [MEST], 2008a). Among the six detailed promotion plans established
in 2005, the fourth, improving foreign students’ learning and living environment,
set the goal of increasing foreign students’ preference to study abroad in Korea
by minimizing linguistic difficulties (MEHRD, 2005, p. 24). One of the primary
methods through which the government sought to do this was the provision of
foreign language-medium courses.4 As an incentive for universities to establish
such courses, the government planned to (a) provide financial support for 48
schools until 2010 on the condition that they find matching contributions that go
beyond the amount awarded by the government and (b) to include a criterion for
proportion of foreign language-medium instruction when evaluating universities
for various projects (MEHRD, 2005, p. 25). Foreign language-medium, however, was
replaced by English-medium in later documents (e.g., MEHRD, 2007). Although an
overwhelming majority of international students coming to study in Korea were
from non-English-speaking countries, such as other Asian countries (Lee, Roh,
Shin, & Park, 2009), English’s status as a lingua franca and the assumption of its
familiarity with all students is unquestioned.

World Class University

From 2008 to 2012, the South Korean government carried out the World Class
University (WCU) project. Its purpose was (a) to advance research and nurture
future academic generations in key areas for national development and (b) to secure
overseas scholars with high research capacity in order to innovate universities’
education and research climate and to cultivate world class research-oriented
universities (MEST, 2008b, p. 3). The latter goal was built on the assumption that
world class faculty would lead to a world class department and eventually a
world class university (MEST, 2008b, p. 3). While there was no explicit mention
of EMI in the selection criteria (MEST, 2008b), one of the expectations of inviting
4 
Additionally, the government also proposed to alleviate international students’ linguistic difficulties
by providing support for universities to establish Korean language training programs.

37
 Working Papers in Educational Linguistics Volume 33

overseas scholars to Korean universities was that they would be offering courses
in English. Later, EMI was included in the evaluation criteria for determining
whether a university selected for the project was meeting its goals (National
Research Foundation of Korea, 2011). Moreover, the 2009 evaluation report of the
WCU project includes a statement which implies that EMI was seen as a positive
addition to the universities:

Lectures given in English by overseas scholars have brought about the

vitalization of English education.
- Out of all the academic courses (302 total) offered in WCU graduate
departments and majors (26), 80% (241) are offered in English, and
the proportion of EMI courses offered by domestic professors has also
reached 58% (=83/144).5 (MEST, 2010, pp. 3–4, my translation)

Even though there is no specification that overseas scholars must be recruited

from English-speaking countries, the document reveals an assumption that their
lectures will be offered in English. Therefore, similar to what was seen in the Study
Korea Project, English is viewed as the default medium of international academic
communication. Furthermore, highlighting the expansion of EMI courses as one
of the effects of the project indicates the importance that the government places on
furthering English education.

Summary

The trajectory through which English entered and spread through South
Korea demonstrates that “participation on the global stage was imagined as
necessarily mediated by the global language of English, which no doubt served
as a crucial ideology for shaping the meaning of the English language in Korean
society” (Shim & Park, 2008, p. 144). A review of the South Korean government’s
successive internationalization projects reveals a recurring discourse emphasizing
the need to elevate the nation’s standing in the global community. Specifically,
EMI was seen as a means to increase the international prestige of universities,
increase domestic students’ English proficiency in preparation for entering the
global market, and attract more international students to the country. However,
it is also true that, perhaps with the exception of the Study Korea Project, EMI
has been promoted as a peripheral rather than main strategy for the overarching
goal of internationalization. This point is elaborated by Park (2011), who stated
that compared to other internationalization strategies, such as the recruitment
of foreign scholars and students to Korean universities, EMI itself has not
been the central focus or goal of the Korean government (p. 78). Therefore, the
government’s projects alone do not fully explain the surge of EMI in South
Korean universities. Park (2011) observes that EMI has advanced mainly through
the institutional policies set by universities themselves. In lieu of this view, it is
important to consider how universities, acting both under government influences
and independently, formulate such policies.

5 
“영어로 진행되는 해외학자의 강의는 대학 영어교육을 활성화 하는 계기가 되고 있다.
- WCU대학원 학과•전공(26개)에 개설된 교과목(총 302개)의 80%(241개)가 영어로 진행되었으
며, 국내 교수의 영어강의 비율도 58%(=83/144개)에 달하였다.”

38
 English-Medium Instruction Policies in South Korean Higher Education

Institutional EMI Policies

While universities may be placed on the same global and national stage, the
needs, goals, and available resources for each institution vary, which inevitably
leads them to respond to external influences in different ways. In this section, I will
discuss how four South Korean universities have each taken a somewhat different
approach to EMI due to a number of factors. The four universities are: Seoul National
University (SNU), Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST),
Korea University (KU), and Yeungnam University (YU). After discussing the selection
criteria, I will describe the relevant institutional EMI policies for each university. The
discussion will mainly draw on the mid- and long-term development plans that
each university devised in the 2000s, a time period in which EMI proliferated.

Selection Criteria

The four universities have been selected based on a number of criteria that
highlight similarities as well as differences in EMI policies. KAIST, the university
referred to in the opening of this paper, was included as a special case because of
its particularly high profile. The other three were selected based on the following
criteria. The first and perhaps most important criterion was the percentage of major
EMI courses offered over the years. Universities where the percentage and the rate
of increase were relatively small as well as those where they were relatively great
were selected to allow for comparisons. This criterion may represent the importance
that universities place on EMI or, alternatively, the barriers preventing universities
from drastically increasing it. The percentages are presented in Table 2. The second
criterion was the university rankings as published by JoongAng Ilbo, which is the
oldest and most widely accepted measure for national university rankings within
South Korea. Since universities compete to receive top rankings, they are often used
as a rationale when formulating university policies. Two universities which were
ranked at the top (SNU and KU) as well as one that was ranked relatively lower
(YU) were included. Finally, universities were selected based on location (Seoul vs.
non-Seoul), as Korean higher education institutions are highly stratified based on
region. The most prestigious universities are clustered in Seoul while universities
located elsewhere are continuously perceived to be in a crisis (Kim, 2013). As a
result, two universities located in Seoul (SNU and KU) and one university in a city
other than Seoul (YU) were selected.

Description of Universities and Their EMI Policies

Seoul National University. SNU is a public research university which recently

privatized in 2011. It is widely considered to be the most prestigious university
in South Korea, and was ranked first by JoongAng Ilbo in 2016. Interestingly,
compared to other top universities in South Korea (such as KAIST and KU, to be
discussed below), the overall proportion of EMI and the rate at which it increased
was relatively low. However, it is uncertain whether this represents a hesitancy
towards EMI on the part of the administration, as there are some indicators
suggesting that it would have liked to go beyond its current state. For instance, an
examination of SNU’s 2007–2025 long-term development plan reveals that goals
were set to increase the proportion of EMI or foreign language-medium instruction

39
 Working Papers in Educational Linguistics Volume 33

Table 2
Percentage of Major Courses Offered in EMI (Ranking of Institution for EMI
Dimensiona in Parentheses)
2016
University 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Ranking

Seoul
5.38 2.47 11.64 11.97 11.97 11.02 10.04 10.08 9.68
1 National
(15) (28) (18) (18) (22) (25) (33) (32) (35)
University
Korea
Advanced
Institute 21.43 35.18 50.83 67.94 > 50c > 50c > 30c > 25c > 20c
n/ab
of Science (2) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
and
Technology

Korea 26.22 22.19 24.83 27.57 30.86 35.72 > 30c > 25c > 20c
5
University (1) (3) (3) (4) (7) (8) (1) (1) (1)

Yeungnam 1.36 1.72 1.94 4.86 5.35 7.34 10.48 9.83 12.73
26
University (40+) (35) (35) (25) (38) (36) (30) (33) (32)
Note. Data compiled from JoongAng Ilbo (n.d.).
a
For the EMI dimension, each institution received a score on the report based on the
percentage of major courses offered in EMI, calculated using the following equation:
(number of major courses offered in EMI/total number of major courses)*100. bJoongAng
Ilbo rankings became unavailable for KAIST in 2015, as specialization universities were
excluded from the overall rankings starting that year. The last year that KAIST was included
in the overall rankings was 2014, when it was ranked 2nd. cStarting in 2010, a cap was set
so that all institutions exceeding a certain percentage would receive a full score on the EMI
dimension. In this case, the actual percentage was not reported for that institution.

courses to 15% in 2010, 30% in 2015, and 50% in 2025. The discrepancy between
these goals and the reality could be explained by SNU’s long-standing status as a
public university. According to Kim and Nam (2007), private universities tend to
“enjoy more autonomy and organizational flexibility in their restructuring process
than do public institutions” which may “allow reform policies to become more
efficient” (p. 134). As SNU had been a public institution receiving funds from
the government, it has experienced difficulties in remaining autonomous and
effectively forming and maintaining consistent institutional policies (Kim & Nam,
2007). Because of its status as a public university, effectively pushing any policy
would have required a bureaucratic process. These structures persisted even when
SNU privatized in 2011, which perhaps explains why the EMI rate did not increase
even after then. One article in Premium Chosun pointed out that unlike KAIST,
which established an efficient decision-making process after privatization, SNU
remains bureaucratic, with the role of the government simply transferring to a
central party within the university (Won & Lee, 2014). Therefore, it is possible to
interpret SNU’s small EMI proportion and increase rate as a consequence of its
limited power to aggressively pursue an EMI policy (or any university policy in
general) rather than a lack of will.

40
 English-Medium Instruction Policies in South Korean Higher Education

Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. KAIST is a public

research university specializing in science and technology, located in Daejeon. It
has consistently been ranked at the top by JoongAng Ilbo in past years, including
in 2014 when it was placed second.6 It started incorporating EMI in 2003 (Lee
& Hong, 2015). As mentioned in the introduction, KAIST began offering all
courses in English in 2007 for the entering class of that year and by 2010, its entire
undergraduate curriculum was being offered in English.
Although KAIST and SNU were both prestigious public universities, the
trajectories they took in terms of EMI were very different. One reason seems to
be that KAIST went through a more effective process of privatization, and EMI
at KAIST was driven primarily through the vision of single authority figures.
The first foreign president of KAIST was Robert B. Laughlin, who served from
2004 to 2006. An account by Kim and Nam (2007) describes that “[Laughlin]
expressed his intention of lowering the school’s dependency on the government
and increasing international competitiveness” (p. 134). Although his ideas were
unpopular, leading him to step down in 2006, Laughlin’s successor, Nam-pyo Suh,
took on his ideas and proceeded with the radical university reforms mentioned
in the introduction, including the 100% EMI policy. A look at KAIST’s 5-Year
Development Plan (2007–2011) reveals the goals it envisioned for EMI at the time.
The plan emphasizes the building of a bilingual campus and strengthening the
university’s global competitiveness. More precisely, EMI is expected to provide
the optimal education environment for foreign students as well as strengthen
the global competitiveness of outstanding domestic students (Korea Advanced
Institution of Science and Technology [KAIST], 2007). Thus, KAIST was explicit
in its pursuit of two language planning goals: interlingual communication and
foreign language acquisition. However, another more implicit goal of language
shift seems to have been in place as well. The 100% EMI policy implied that no
academic content would be taught in Korean and students’ domain-specific
knowledge would be acquired in English. Therefore, students who had up until
high school completed their academic studies in Korean were now expected to
shift to English.
Korea University. KU is a private research university located in Seoul.
Although it was placed fifth in the JoongAng Ilbo national rankings in 2016, it is
considered one of the top three universities in South Korea, along with SNU and
Yonsei University. It was also one of the first universities to offer EMI, doing so
in 1999 (Song, 2008). In 2003, KU launched the Global KU Project (2003–2010),
signaling plans to magnify its emphasis on internationalization. An interview with
the university president at the time provides insight into EMI’s place within this
long-term plan:

In order to increase the competitiveness of the university, we must

provide a consumer-centered education. Every year we open a seminar
with corporate human resources directors, and the most sought-
after qualities in students are enthusiasm, teamwork, creativity,
and international communication skills. Among these, international
communication skills are most important. The Global KU project seeks
to satisfy this demand. Therefore, we increased EMI and in order to
6 
JoongAng Ilbo rankings became unavailable for KAIST in 2015, as specialization universities were
excluded from the overall rankings starting that year.

41
 Working Papers in Educational Linguistics Volume 33
heighten awareness of other cultures we send 1000 students, which
is 20% of the student body, to schools in other countries.7 (“Eoyundae
chongjang inteobyu,” 2006, my translation)

The president’s statement reveals a belief that the university’s prestige is closely
tied to students’ performance in the job market, and that EMI will serve as a tool
to prepare students for an international market. As KU is a private university, the
president and university administration hold considerable sway in deciding the
policies of the university, and therefore the president’s views serve as an important
indicator of the directions envisioned for the EMI policy.
Yeungnam University. YU is in many ways different from the three universities
discussed so far. It is located in the Gyeongnam province in the southern part
of South Korea. It placed 25th in the JoongAng Ilbo rankings in 2016, which is
noticeably lower than the other three universities. Nevertheless, it is prestigious
within its region. In fact, it was the only university from the Gyeongnam province
to have placed in the top 30. A look at the proportion of major EMI courses shows
a small initial value and a low increase rate, similar to SNU. However, the reasons
for the smaller values seem to differ for SNU and YU. As part of the YU Glocal
Initiative which the university launched in 2009, YU set the goal of increasing its
proportion of major EMI courses from 4% in 2009 to 10% in 2012. These goals
are much more modest compared to the other three universities. In terms of their
goals for internationalization, SNU, KAIST, and KU seem more occupied with
global standing. Their places as top national institutions remain undisputed and
unquestioned, and thus they are able to attend to more internationally-oriented
goals. YU’s development plans over the years, on the other hand, make frequent
mention of a crisis resulting from the polarization of universities and the need to
compete with universities in Seoul for survival (Yeungnam University, 2009, 2013).
Such different circumstances put pressure on YU to focus more on cultivating its
status within the nation. Thus, its modest values and goals for EMI may imply
a relative lack of resources, a greater concern for national rather than global
standing, or both.

Summary

The four universities’ EMI policies show differences in terms of conceptual

and practical goals, which in turn reflect the diverse characteristics of each
institution. SNU, KAIST, and KU, all of which have already established their
prestige within the nation, perhaps had more freedom to pursue their global
standing. YU, on the other hand, faced the task of competing with prestigious
schools in the metropolitan Seoul area and thus had to consider their national
standing in addition to their global standing. Furthermore, public/private status
as well as the location of the university seemed to be factors affecting the degree
to which universities could pursue EMI, as private universities are able to put
institutional policies into motion more quickly and universities located in the
7 
“대학의 경쟁력을 높이기 위해서는 수요자 중심교육을 해야 한다. 매년 기업체 인사책임자와 세미나
를 하는데, 학생들에게 가장 요구되는 자질로 열성• 팀워크• 창의성• 국제적인 커뮤니케이션능력
을 꼽는다. 그중에서 국제적인 커뮤니케이션 능력이 제일 중요하다. 글로벌 KU 프로젝트를 통해 그
러한 요구를 충족시키고자 했다. 그래서, 영어강의를 확대했고 다른 문화에 대한 이해를 높이기 위해
1년에 1000명, 학생의 20%를 해외 학교에 보냈다.”

42
 English-Medium Instruction Policies in South Korean Higher Education

Seoul area tend to have more resources. Nevertheless, the four universities all
showed a general pull towards EMI, and their policies were in line with the overall
social climate linking English with success. Thus, the findings lend support to
Ricento and Hornberger’s (1996) argument that institutions “play important roles
as policymakers, arbiters, watchdogs, opinion leaders, gatekeepers, and most
usually reproducers of the existing social reality” and that “attitudes toward
languages and their speakers are deeply embedded in institutional structures and
practices” (p. 416).

Individual Agents

In this section, I turn my attention to individuals in the innermost layer of the

LPP onion, that is, the faculty and students who are impacted by EMI policies.
It should be noted that these individual agents are not merely passive recipients
of the policies. As Ricento and Hornberger (1996) claim, “educational and social
change and institutional transformation… often begin with the grass roots” (p.
417), and inner actors often serve as key players in shaping policy. Here I will
focus on three groups—domestic faculty, domestic students, and international
students—with the understanding that each group is not homogenous, but
composed of individuals with varying attitudes, opinions, and experiences
regarding the policies. Furthermore, I do not assume that these are the only ways
to represent the different stakeholders affected by EMI policies. I draw mainly
from published studies, media reports, and campus newspaper articles to depict
the experiences of these three groups. In the interest of convenience, I draw from
individuals from multiple institutions where data is available.

Domestic Faculty

Ricento and Hornberger (1996) “place the classroom practitioner at the heart
of language policy” (p. 417). While there are larger sociopolitical, macro-level
forces which teachers have little control over and which they oftentimes may
accept and follow as they are expected to, there have been studies (e.g., Johnson,
2009; Menken, 2008) demonstrating that “teachers can transform classrooms,
thereby promoting institutional change that can lead to political and, ultimately,
broader social change” (Ricento & Hornberger, 1996, p. 418). Instead of viewing
practitioner behaviors as either unwittingly reproducing or constantly resisting
existing social beliefs, I will try to understand how faculty members involved in
EMI implementation negotiate between policy and reality.
In a study by Cho (2012), a survey among faculty at a select university
revealed that 90.2% of “faculty respondents considered English proficiency of
professors” either “important” or “very important” in “leading to successful and
effective classes taught in English” (p. 149). However, Cho (2012) also found that
“nearly half of the respondents answered that they were dissatisfied (43.9%) or
highly dissatisfied (2.5%) with classes given in English,” one of the reasons given
being “that delivering course content effectively was difficult due to the [sic] their
inadequate English proficiency” (p. 148). These survey results demonstrate a
frequently mentioned problem of EMI: English is not the mother tongue of most
faculty members. This may directly affect faculty’s teaching practices. For example,

43
 Working Papers in Educational Linguistics Volume 33

some studies have noted that faculty do not always use only English in so-called
English only lectures. In one study involving data from multiple universities
across the nation, Lee and Hong (2015) found instructors were more likely to
mix Korean and English during EMI courses than exclusively use English. Byun
et al. (2011), focusing specifically on one university (KU), found similar results.
However, should such teaching practices be viewed only as the result of faculty’s
own language abilities?
In addition to their own English proficiency, faculty respondents in Cho’s
(2012) study indicated that their dissatisfaction with EMI courses stemmed from
the fact that “discussions between students and teachers and among students
were repressed due to the students’ inadequate English proficiency” and because
“students asked fewer questions” (p. 148). Similarly, some of the KU professors
interviewed in Byun et al. (2011) “did not necessarily support the EMI policy,
which they thought deprived instructors of the advantages of using a shared
mother tongue, where pedagogically appropriate, with their students” (p. 443).
To delve deeper into this issue, we may also look at the views of professors
from KAIST, where the EMI policy came under national scrutiny. Their opinions
gathered from media interviews revealed a generally critical stance towards the
radical university policy. One pointed out that personal relationships between
professors and students cannot be built if professors give lectures as if they were
reading from scripts; another stated that if KAIST truly wanted to become a top
ten world university, students should learn the natural sciences in their mother
tongue because language mediates thinking, and it is students’ educational right
to learn in their mother tongue (Shin, 2011). One professor went so far as to declare
that he would conduct all his classes in Korean in order to reclaim the personal
relationship between professor and student (Yoon, 2011). However, this same
professor stated that it was not his intent to say that EMI should be eliminated
completely, as it is nearly impossible these days to conduct world class research
without developing one’s English language skills. Rather, he emphasized the
problematic nature of the university EMI policy where implementational realities
were ignored.
Gathering from these sources, faculty’s concerns regarding EMI seemed to not
just include but also go beyond their own struggles with English; they reflected the
critical ways in which faculty considered students’ needs and the shortcomings
of institutional policies. Faculty’s altered teaching practices therefore could be
viewed as a way to cope with, adapt to, or sometimes even resist a unidirectional
university policy.

Students
As discussed in earlier sections of this paper, EMI policies often involve both
a language acquisition goal and an interlingual communication goal. The former
has mainly targeted domestic students to prepare them for the competitive job
market while the latter has mainly targeted international students to alleviate
the linguistic barriers they may experience. In the discussion to follow, it will be
demonstrated that these two different goals intended for two different groups
have sometimes proven to be at odds with each other, leading to the question of
whether setting a common policy for such a complex set of needs is sufficient.

44
 English-Medium Instruction Policies in South Korean Higher Education

In terms of the language acquisition goal of EMI for domestic students,

previous studies show competing viewpoints within institutions and even within
individuals. To give one example, Byun et al. (2011) found that students in their
study generally “believed EMI leads to improved English proficiency” but also
“felt that EMI was hindering their acquisition of knowledge to some extent” (p.
438). These students elaborated on a number of challenges for EMI, including the
inequalities it may bring, the extra effort necessary to master the content material,
and the lack of quality compared to courses taught in Korean. The students in
Cho’s (2012) study problematized EMI in similar ways, pointing to the “lack of
class participation such as few questions and unheated discussions,” “a low level
of concentration,” the “lack of interaction and discussion between students and
professors,” and “the disadvantage experienced by students with limited English
proficiency” (pp. 156–157). Thus, students seemed to share faculty’s previously
mentioned concerns, and they did not automatically perceive and accept university
policy as the norm. Their experiences also reveal how the reality of EMI falls short
of the imagined goal.
In terms of the goal of interlingual communication for international students,
both the Korean government and individual institutions have used EMI as a
strategy to draw more international students to Korean universities. Many Korean
universities do not set strict Korean language requirements for these international
students, because, as one professor in Palmer and Cho’s (2011) study questioned:
“How many students will come to Korea if they have to pass a Korean language
examination?” (p. 129). Table 3 presents the results from a survey administered
to international students enrolled in South Korean universities, conducted by
Table 3
Survey Results of Foreign Students Enrolled in Degree Programs
Korean Language Ability at Time of Entry to Korea
Category n (%)
1. Fluent 108 (13.6%)
2. Could Partially Understand Lectures 139 (17.5%)
3. Daily Communication Possible 220 (27.7%)
4. Could Not Use Korean At All 327 (41.2%)
Total 794 (100%)
Time Spent Studying Korean for College Entrance
Category n (%)
1. Did Not Study Korean 100 (29.8%)
2. 6 Months 66 (19.6%)
3. 6 Months to 1 Year 44 (13.1%)
4. 1 Year to 1 Year 6 Months 47 (14%)
5. 1 Year 6 Months to 2 Years 22 (6.5%)
6. Other 57 (17%)
Total 336 (100%)
Source: Adapted from Lee et al. (2009)

45
 Working Papers in Educational Linguistics Volume 33

Lee et al. (2009). It shows that nearly 70% of the survey respondents were not
able to understand Korean lectures at the time they entered South Korea (p.
129). Furthermore, 29.8% of students did not study Korean when preparing to
enter a South Korean university, which the researchers explain is partly because
respondents enrolled in undergraduate and graduate degree programs take
courses in English (p. 129). The researchers also noted that in a free response item
asking for suggestions to Korean universities, many respondents requested an
expansion of EMI courses (p. 135).
Several articles published in the KAIST Times, KAIST’s campus newspaper,
reveal concerns created by inadequate language policies. Yoon (2014) questions
KAIST’s current situation where international students are attracted to the
university because it is advertised as a bilingual campus, but are confounded once
they arrive on campus and find the reality different from their expectations. For
instance, a syllabus may officially state that a course is offered in English, but in
fact it may be taught in Korean. Some professors have turned away international
students from official EMI courses, asking them to look for another course since
the lecture will be conducted in Korean (Yoon, 2014). One KAIST international
student reported that he took a course in which he was the only international
student, and though the syllabus stated that the lecture would be in English, it was
actually conducted in Korean (Yoon, 2014).
However, another article in the KAIST Times offered a different perspective.
Choi (2014) states that there is insufficient Korean language education for
international students. He blames the university’s policy for not requiring a
certain level of Korean language skills for international students. His arguments
indicate that the language barrier between domestic and international students
should not be alleviated by the use of English by domestic students, but by the
learning of Korean by international students. This is also reflected in the comments
of some of the Korean students and faculty in Palmer and Cho’s (2011) study:
“When I studied in the United States, I had to speak English. All my courses were
in English. I wrote my thesis/dissertation in English” (p 130). There is a belief that
international students in Korea should do the same.

Summary

An examination of the inner layer revealed a complex relationship among

different groups of actors and also a varying set of attitudes and beliefs within
each group. Several implications can be drawn: First of all, faculty are not passive
implementers of university policies. They not only actively voice their opinions
and challenge university policies, they may also alter their classroom practices
based on what they believe is best for their students. Thus, they have agency
and act as ground level policy makers. Second, EMI policies involved multiple
language planning goals and each goal had a different group as its main target;
different individuals placed different levels of importance on each goal. Some
faculty and students discussed the impact of EMI mainly in terms of its effect
on course quality and language learning. Others were more concerned with
its role of facilitating interlingual communication and including international
students. Still others acknowledged the interlingual communication goal,
but problematized the fact that it caters to the needs of one group while

46
 English-Medium Instruction Policies in South Korean Higher Education

disadvantaging another. Thus, EMI policies are complicated by a difference in

perceptions about which goal is primary. Rather than considering how the policy
may affect separate target populations differently, EMI policy formation often
enforced uniform requirements for all groups, leading to a policy perceived
as inadequate by the impacted parties. The inner layer is where the sources of
tension become most apparent.

Conclusion

Although policy creation and policy implementation have traditionally been

dichotomized (Johnson, 2009), LPP processes rarely fall into such neatly structured
categories. García and Menken (2010) depict local actors as stirrers of the onion to
highlight how they bring various interpretations and appropriations of policies
to disrupt linear understandings of language policy as being either top-down or
bottom-up. The case of EMI policies in South Korean higher education demonstrates
how LPP agents and entities from multiple levels of society collectively contribute
to the shaping of policies. While the South Korean government and universities
have attempted to use EMI as a way to adapt to a globalized society wherein
English continues to expand its dominance as a lingua franca, the reality of EMI
policies became most visible at the implementational level. The mandatory, top-
down manner in which institutions have enforced EMI has in particular been
identified as problematic (Byun et al., 2011). A look into actual classroom practices
revealed that individuals exercised their agency to reinterpret these policies which
they deemed unsuitable for their situations. Several recent events also indicate
that the actions of inner layer agents can prompt negotiation among other layers
and lead to changes. For instance, in its most recent development plan, KAIST
(2013) stated that it would increase mother tongue instruction in order to prevent
a decline in thinking and imagination resulting from a language barrier and reject
the excessive focus on English (p. 24). Although KAIST continues to emphasize
the importance of an EMI policy, as of 2012 it has started phasing out EMI for
humanities and social science electives. Furthermore, it plans to conduct a survey
among students and faculty before establishing directions for a new EMI policy.
Thus, it seems that the voices of students and faculty are beginning to be reflected
in the university’s policies.
The issue of EMI is also further complicated by the diversifying Korean
classroom, which has historically been assumed to be homogenous. How do we
balance the needs of various stakeholders in a language policy? This is not an easy
question to answer, but the trial-and-error of actors discussed in this paper may
offer some directions. After experiencing much turmoil, KAIST (2013) has also
started to highlight the notion of choice, stating in the development plan that it
will maintain the principles of a global campus while providing a choice for faculty
and students regarding EMI (p. 41). This focus on choice is a promising first step,
as it would support the right to receive instruction in the mother tongue while also
continuing to provide EMI courses for those who wish for or need it. As Ricento
and Hornberger (1996) state, “the principle of linguistic self-determinism—the
right to choose (within limits) what languages one will use and be educated in—is
not only viable but desirable for LPP decision making because it both promotes
social equity and fosters diversity” (p. 401).

47
 Working Papers in Educational Linguistics Volume 33

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Professor Nancy H. Hornberger and the participants of the
Spring 2016 Language Planning and Policy seminar for providing an invaluable
space for developing the ideas in this paper. I am also grateful to Gareth Smail for
his insightful feedback and careful editing, as well as an anonymous reviewer for
their thoughtful comments.

Katherine Kang (kathkang@gse.upenn.edu) is a PhD candidate in Educational Linguistics at the

University of Pennsylvania. Her research interests lie in second language acquisition and pedagogy.

References

Altbach, P. G. (2004). Globalisation and the university: Myths and realities in an

unequal world. Tertiary Education and Management, 10(1), 3–25.
Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education:
Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education,
11(3–4), 290–305.
Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge, United
Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Byun, K., Chu, H., Kim, M., Park, I., Kim, S., & Jung, J. (2011). English-medium
teaching in Korean higher education: Policy debates and reality. Higher
Education, 62(4), 431–449.
Cho, D. W. (2012). English-medium instruction in the university context of Korea:
Tradeoff between teaching outcomes and media-initiated university
ranking. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 9(4), 135–163.
Choi, M.-H. [최미화]. (2011, April 8). 잇단 자살 KAIST, 도대체 무슨 일이
있었을까 [String of suicides at KAIST, what on earth happened]. Maeil
Newspaper. Retrieved from http://www.imaeil.com/sub_news/sub_
news_view.php?news_id=16846&yy=2011
Choi, S.-H. [최시훈]. (2014, May 7). 외국인 학우들의 한국어 교육 충분한가 [Is
there sufficient Korean language education for our foreign classmates].
KAIST Times. Retrieved from http://times.kaist.ac.kr/news/articleView.
html?idxno=2694
Coleman, J. A. (2006). English-medium teaching in European higher education.
Language Teaching, 39(1), 1–14.
Cooper, R. L. (1989). Language planning and social change. Cambridge, United
Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Currie, J. (1998). Introduction. In J. Currie & J. Newson (Eds.), Universities and
globalization: Critical perspectives (pp. 1–13). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (Eds.). (2013). English-medium
instruction at universities: Global challenges. Bristol, United Kingdom:
Multilingual Matters.
Eoyundae chongjang inteobyu: Segyeini gamtanhaneun godaein doegil [어윤대
총장 인터뷰: 세계인이 감탄하는 고대인 되길…; Interview with President
Euh Yoon-dae: In hopes that Korea University members will be admired
by the world...]. (2006, December 3). Korea University Weekly. Retrieved
from http://www.kukey.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=9184

48
 English-Medium Instruction Policies in South Korean Higher Education

García, O., & Menken, K. (2010). Stirring the onion: Educators and the dynamics
of language education policies (looking ahead). In K. Menken &
O. García (Eds.), Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as
policymakers (pp. 249–261). New York, NY: Routledge.
Haarmann, H. (1990). Language planning in the light of a general theory of
language: A methodological framework. International Journal of the
Sociology of Language, 86(1), 103-126.
Heo, H.-J. [허환주]. (2011, April 11). “카이스트 100% 영어 강의는 미친짓이다”:
교수들 반발 “서남표 총장에게 건의했지만 반영 안 돼” [“KAIST 100%
English-medium instruction is insane”: Faculty protest “Proposals made
to President Suh Nam-pyo were not reflected”]. Pressian. Retrieved from
http://www.pressian.com/news/article.html?no=104017
Hornberger, N. H. (1994). Literacy and language planning. Language and
Education, 8(1), 75–86.
Hornberger, N. H. (2006). Frameworks and models in language policy and
planning. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and
method (pp. 24–41). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Hornberger, N. H., & Johnson, D. C. (2007). Slicing the onion ethnographically:
Layers and spaces in multilingual language education policy and
practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 509–532.
Johnson, D. C. (2009). Ethnography of language policy. Language Policy, 8(2),
139–159.
Johnson, D. C. (2013). Language policy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
JoongAng Ilbo. (n.d.). 중앙일보 대학평가 [JoongAng Ilbo University Report;
Data set]. Retrieved from http://univ.joongang.co.kr/university/
univReport.asp
Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B. (1997). Language planning from practice to theory.
Clevedon, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters.
Kim, J.-H. [김준호]. (2011, April 8). KAIST 학생 잇단 자살 원인놓고 ‘논쟁’ 가열
[Heated ‘disputes’ over causes of KAIST student suicides]. Yonhap News
Agency. Retrieved from http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/bulletin/2011/04/
08/0200000000AKR20110408108400063.HTML
Kim, J.-H. [김정희]. (2013). 지역발전을 위한 지방대학 육성정책 연구: 참여정부와
이명박 정부의 대학 지정지원사업 비교분석을 중심으로 [A study on
how to nurture local universities for regional development: Comparing
financial supports for universities carried out by the participatory
government and the Lee Myung-bak administration]. The Korean Journal
of Local Government Studies, 17(1), 105–135.
Kim, K.-S., & Nam, S. (2007). The making of a world-class university at the
periphery. In P. G. Altbach & J. Balán (Ed.), World class worldwide:
Transforming research universities in Asia and Latin America (pp. 122–139).
Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kloss, H. (1969). Research possibilities on group bilingualism: A report. Quebec,
Canada: International Center for Research on Bilingualism. Retrieved
from ERIC database (ED037728).
Knight, J. (1999). Internationalisation of higher education. In J. Knight & H. de
Wit (Eds.), Quality and internationalisation in higher education (pp. 13–28).
Paris, France: OECD.

49
 Working Papers in Educational Linguistics Volume 33

Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. (2007). 세계 최고의

과학기술대학 도약을 위한 KAIST 발전 5개년 계획 (2007–2011) [KAIST
5-year development plan (2007–2011) to become the world’s best science
and technology university]. Daejeon, South Korea: Author.
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. (2013). KAIST 중장기
발전계획 [KAIST mid- and long-term development plan]. Retrieved from
http://www.academyinfo.go.kr
Lee, K.-H. [이광현], & Hong, J.-Y. [홍지영]. (2015). 대학 영어전용강의 실태와
학습성과 분석 [Study on the situations and learning effect of English
medium instruction at Korean universities]. The Journal of Local Education
Management, 18(1), 1–22.
Lee, K.-J. [이기정], Roh, J.-H. [노정희], Shin, W.-Y. [신우영], & Park, S.-C.
[박승철]. (2009). 국내 외국인 학생 지원, 관리체제 개선 방안 연구 [A
study on measures to improve the support and management system for
foreign students in Korea]. Seoul, South Korea: Ministry of Education,
Science and Technology.
Lee, Y.-C. [이영철]. (2011, April 11). 파국 맞은 ‘서남표式’ 성장주의교육,
개혁의 허와 실 [The collapse of ‘Suh Nam-pyo style’ growth-
oriented education, the truth and falsity of reform]. The Asia
Economy Daily. Retrieved from http://www.asiae.co.kr/news/view.
htm?idxno=2011040809030182451
Menken, K. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language
policy. Clevedon, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters.
Menken, K., & García, O. (2010). Introduction. In K. Menken & O. García (Eds.),
Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers (pp. 1–10).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development. (2005). Study Korea
프로젝트 세부 추진 계획 [Study Korea Project detailed promotion plan].
Seoul, South Korea: Author.
Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development. (2007). 2007년도
외국인 유학생 유치 촉진을 위한 영어 전용강좌 및 한국어 연수프로그램
지원사업 기본계획 [2007 basic plan for supporting English-medium
courses and Korean language training programs to promote recruitment
of foreign students]. Seoul, South Korea: Author.
Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development, & Korea Research
Foundation. (2007). Brain Korea 21: 1단계 두뇌한국21사업 백서 [Brain
Korea 21: Phase 1 BK21 program white paper]. Seoul, South Korea: Author.
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2008a). 2012년까지 외국인
유학생 10만명 유치 [Attracting 100,000 foreign students by 2012] [Press
release]. Seoul, South Korea: Author.
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2008b). 세계수준의
연구중심대학 (WCU) 육성 사업 계획 [WCU program plan].
Retrieved from http://www.moe.go.kr/boardCnts/list.
do?boardID=337&m=030301&s=moe
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2010). 2009년 WCU사업
연차평가 결과 [Results of the 2009 WCU program yearly evaluation;
Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.moe.go.kr/boardCnts/list.
do?boardID=337&m=030301&s=moe

50
 English-Medium Instruction Policies in South Korean Higher Education

Mitchell, D. E., & Nielsen, S. Y. (2012). Internationalization and globalization in

higher education. In H. Cuadra-Montiel (Ed.), Globalization: Education and
management agendas (pp. 3-22). Rijeka, Croatia: InTech.
National Research Foundation of Korea. (2011). ‘11년 WCU사업 연차평가
기본계획 (안) [2011 WCU program yearly evaluation basic plan
(proposal)]. Retrieved from http://www.moe.go.kr/boardCnts/list.
do?boardID=337&m=030301&s=moe
Palmer, J. D., & Cho, Y. H. (2011). Does internationalization really mean
Americanization? A closer look at major South Korean universities’
internationalization policies. In J. D. Palmer, A. Roberts, Y. H. Cho, &
G. S. Ching (Eds.), The internationalization of East Asian higher education:
Globalization’s impact (pp. 119–145). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Park, J.-K. (2009). ‘English fever’ in South Korea: Its history and symptoms.
English Today, 25(1), 50–57.
Park, S.-H. [박시흥]. (2011). 한국 대학의 국제화 추진에 대한 영향 요인 연구
[(A) study on the influential factors for internationalization of Korean
universities; Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Korea University, Seoul,
South Korea.
Qiang, Z. (2003). Internationalisation of higher education: Towards a conceptual
framework. Policy Futures in Education, 1(2), 248–270.
Ricento, T. K., & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language
planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3),
401–427.
Seong, S., Popper, S. W., Goldman, C. A., Evans, D. K., & Grammich, C. A. (2008).
Brain Korea 21 phase II: A new evaluation model. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Shim, D., & Park, J. S.-Y. (2008). The language politics of “English fever” in South
Korea. Korea Journal, 48(2), 136–159.
Shin, H. (2007). English language teaching in Korea: Toward globalization or
glocalization? In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of
English language teaching (pp. 75–86). New York, NY: Springer.
Shin, H.-Y. [신하영]. (2011, April 7). ‘서남표식 개혁’ 학생 자살로 재조명 [Student
suicides redirect spotlight on ‘Suh Nam-pyo style reforms’]. Daily UNN.
Retrieved from http://www.unn.net/News/Detail.asp?nsCode=71400
Shin, J. C. (2009). Building world-class research university: The Brain Korea 21
project. Higher Education, 58(5), 669–688.
Song, Y.-S. [송영수]. (2008). 대학 영어전용강좌 (EMI) 의 학습 만족도에 영향을
미치는 요인: CIPP 평가 모형을 바탕으로 [Factors influencing course
satisfaction of EMI (English medium instruction) at universities in
Korea]. The Journal of Educational Information and Media, 14(3), 61–84.
Teichler, U. (2004). The changing debate on internationalisation of higher
education. Higher Education, 48(1), 5–26.
Won, S.-W. [원선우], & Lee, T.-D. [이태동]. (2014, May 16). 법인화後
오히려 뒷걸음… 충격의 서울대 [Backward steps instead after
privatization… Seoul National University in shock]. Premium
Chosun. Retrieved from http://premium.chosun.com/site/data/html_
dir/2014/05/16/2014051600172.html?Dep0=twitter
Yeungnam University. (2009). YU Glocal Initiative. Gyeongsan, South Korea:
Author. Retrieved from http://www.academyinfo.go.kr

51
 Working Papers in Educational Linguistics Volume 33

Yeungnam University. (2013). 비전과 전략: YU, the future: 미래를 만드는 대학
[Vision and strategy: YU, the future: A university that makes the future].
Retrieved from http://www.academyinfo.go.kr
Yoon, H.-I. [윤희인]. (2011, April 12). “학생을 잠자게 만드는 억지 영어수업
버리겠다” [“I will abandon forced English lectures that put students to
sleep”]. Kyunghyang Newspaper. Retrieved from http://news.khan.co.kr/
kh_news/khan_art_view.html?artid=201104120329335&code=940401
Yoon, M.-L. [윤미루]. (2014). 울상 짓는 외국인 학우… 우리 학교 영어강의
현주소는 [Foreign classmates on the verge of tears… The current state of
our school’s English lectures]. KAIST Times. Retrieved from http://times.
kaist.ac.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=2727

52