Arif Husein Lubis<\/strong> Reza Anggriyashati Adara<\/strong> This research is driven by the growing importance of English Medium Instruction (EMI) in the internationalization of education in countries where English is not the native language. A mapping analysis method was adopted, employing a replicable search strategy based on specific criteria to outline the distribution of studies concerning the implementation of EMI in Indonesia over the past decade (2012-2023). Subsequently, a systematic review was conducted to gain insights from the findings of 65 previous studies, followed by implications from the findings. The mapping analysis results revealed a rising interest in EMI research over the past three years, particularly in relation to the perceptions and experiences of immediate stakeholders (i.e., teachers and students). The content analysis identified six themes derived from the findings: expectations of the EMI program in Indonesia over the last decade, readiness to implement EMI, perceived roles of EMI, strategies for implementing EMI programs, teachers’ professional development, and emerging concerns with EMI. The implementation of EMI programs is expected to enhance students\u2019 language and disciplinary knowledge while also broadening their intercultural skills, beneficial for job or study preparation overseas. Furthermore, Indonesian teachers largely support the incorporation of other working languages alongside English, embracing translanguaging, which is influenced by the teachers\u2019 and students\u2019 proficiency and instructional objectives. Teachers also employ specific communicative strategies to maintain student engagement. Given the complexity of EMI implementation, teachers engage in various professional development efforts, including participation in workshops and collaboration with peers. Finally, the concerns of both teachers and students regarding EMI are also addressed.<\/p>\n Keywords<\/em><\/strong>: EMI, implications, insights, mapping analysis, systematic review<\/p>\n Internationalization has been a driving force in establishing a specific role for English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) in countries where English is not the first language (Galloway & McKinley, 2017). The priority of internationalization involves internationalizing curricula, developing international cooperation, and performing research with partners from different countries (Galloway & McKinley, 2021). Some higher education institutions in Asia, such as Japan, South Korea, China, Thailand, and Malaysia, have offered English as a medium of instruction (EMI) classes as a part of their courses. Furthermore, implementing EMI courses allows more revenue and improves students\u2019 employability and competitiveness in today\u2019s job markets (Pecorari et al., 2011).<\/p>\n Over the last decade, there have been considerable studies on how EMI is conducted in diverse countries. Most of these studies have focused on discussing the advantages and disadvantages of EMI. Besides appealing to international students and staff (Jensen & Th\u00f8gersen, 2017), the presence of EMI programs can promote institutional internationalization and achievements (Hu, 2019), as well as enhance students\u2019 chances of securing jobs in various countries (Coyle, 2013). Hence, language skills, particularly English, are perceived as a means to provide better opportunities for both students and universities. On the other hand, some studies have highlighted the challenges of conducting EMI courses. For instance, the findings of Cho\u2019s (2012) study on the application of EMI at a science and engineering university in South Korea suggest that the students struggled to understand EMI courses due to their limited English proficiency. Similarly, despite having high levels of English proficiency, participants in Joe and Lee\u2019s (2013) study also had difficulty comprehending courses delivered in English. Additionally, EMI may pose challenges for educators, as they are often required to translate their teaching materials from their native languages into English or forgo discussion time because students are reluctant to speak in English due to their limited proficiency, demanding more time and energy from educators (Hellekj\u00e6r, 2017). Such scholarly discussions indicate the lack of conclusive consensus on the development of EMI practices, highlighting the need for a thorough review of previous studies to provide a clearer portrait of this particular issue. Moreover, there is a lack of studies investigating the implementation of EMI in the Indonesian context. The present study aims to outline previous research examining EMI in Indonesia.<\/p>\n Although EMI has been identified by many different terms, such as content-based teaching and learning, immersion programs, theme-based language learning and teaching, or bilingual classes, the present study will use EMI as an umbrella term. In this sense, EMI can be defined as a program in which English is used as the medium of instruction to teach subjects other than the English language itself (Macaro et al., 2018). Thus, EMI places greater emphasis on content than language teaching (Dearden, 2014; Pecorari & Malmstr\u00f6m, 2018). Although the English language is not taught explicitly in EMI courses, an increase in English proficiency is often expected as a result of participating in such programs (Wanphet & Tantawy, 2018), as students receive extensive feedback in English from lecturers and communicate in English with their peers (Airey et al., 2017; Galloway et al., 2017).\u00a0 Therefore, EMI is perceived as a means to enhance students\u2019 English proficiency by immersing them in the language through content learning.<\/p>\n Initially, the concept of EMI was considered \u2018too Eurocentric,\u2019 as EMI studies appeared to focus heavily on the Englishisation of higher education. However, as EMI has been implemented in many Asian countries, a growing body of scholarship has embraced the term global Englishes<\/em> to better describe the EMI context (Rose et al., 2022). Furthermore, EMI research has begun to incorporate translanguaging practices, which are defined as pedagogical approaches that allow students to use their native language, the English language, and other working languages for learning and meaning-making, rather than restricting them to the use of English only in the classroom (Ata\u015f, 2023; Otheguy et al., 2015). Numerous studies suggest the benefits of translanguaging in EMI contexts (Duran et al., 2022; Lin & He, 2017; Pun & Tai, 2021). It can be said that EMI studies have adopted a more global concept to accommodate diverse teaching and learning environments. This is further supported by previous scholars (Aizawa & Rose, 2019; Graham et al., 2021), who argue that the use of the term English Medium Instruction<\/em> implies the flexibility for the instructors to use languages other than English.<\/p>\n In contrast to neighboring Southeast Asian nations such as Malaysia, the Philippines, and Singapore, which possess a longstanding tradition of Anglophone-oriented education, Indonesia has a comparatively brief history of employing English Medium Instruction (Lamb et al., 2021). English has been incorporated into Malaysian education since the 18th century (Stephen, 2013). On the other hand, English Medium Instruction has been utilized in Singapore since the establishment of the inaugural English-medium school in the middle of the nineteenth century (Bolton et al., 2017). In Indonesia, English was first integrated at the intermediate level in 60s and became a primary school subject in the early 90s (Bolton et al., 2023). The incorporation of the English language within educational institutions is designated as bilingual classrooms (Nasir, 2015). Moreover, in response to the rising demand for English Medium Instruction, the Indonesian government established the International Standard School system (Rintisan Sekolah Bertaraf Internasional<\/em>\/RSBI) in the early 2000s. However, RSBI was dissolved ten years later because the Constitutional Court deemed it discriminatory, as it favored students who could afford the relatively high tuition fees by Indonesian standards (Bolton et al., 2023; Simbolon, 2021). Over the past decade, despite the absence of formal agreements on the implementation of EMI in Indonesian higher education, the term ‘bilingual class<\/em>‘ has often been used to refer to EMI (Nasir, 2015). These bilingual classes are implemented to meet the needs of Indonesian university students, with English used as the medium of instruction in both established and incidental courses (Simbolon, 2021).<\/p>\n The implementation of EMI in Indonesia remains in an immature phase (Simbolon, 2018). English Medium Instruction (EMI) was introduced in higher education institutions in Indonesia in 2015, following the development of a curriculum by the Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education (RISTEKDIKTI) that facilitates teaching and learning in both Indonesian and English (Nasir, 2015). Simbolon (2018) conducted a study on the perspectives of stakeholders\u2014including policymakers, lecturers, and students\u2014regarding EMI. The research indicates that stakeholders agree on the importance of English proficiency among university students; however, it suggests that EMI should be implemented only in specific, relevant departments within a university. Bolton et al. (2023) found that students’ relatively high level of English proficiency is a key factor enabling them to cope effectively with the pace of subject learning in EMI courses. Abduh and Rosmaladewi (2018) examined lecturers’ strategies for integrating intercultural values in bilingual programs at an Indonesian university, while Putrawan (2022) analysed translanguaging practices in EFL classrooms. Dewi (2017) employed a mixed-method approach to explore lecturers’ perceptions of EMI. Nevertheless, definitive evidence regarding the research outcomes on EMI in Indonesia remains insufficient.<\/p>\n Several review papers have been initiated in various Asian countries, including China (Peng & Xie, 2021), South Korea (Kang, 2012; Moodie & Nam, 2016), and Japan (Shimauchi, 2018), to provide a more conclusive overview of EMI studies. These reviews aim to present a comprehensive understanding of research on EMI implementation in countries adopting English as a Foreign Language (EFL), based on scholarly findings. However, there remains a lack of a comprehensive decade-long review of studies on EMI in Indonesia, particularly as part of the broader context of EFL-adopting Asian countries. This study aims to conduct a bibliometric mapping analysis and content review of research on the implementation of English Medium Instruction (EMI) in Indonesia over the past decade. The following research questions guide the present study.<\/p>\n RQ 1: What trends have emerged from the previous studies on English Medium Instruction in Indonesia as an EFL-adopting country over the past decade? <\/strong><\/p>\n a. How is the distribution of publications on EMI? RQ 2: What insights can be gained from previous studies?<\/strong><\/p>\n This study employed a mapping analysis method to generate a thorough distribution of research on the implementation of EMI in Indonesia over the last ten years (2012-2022). Meanwhile, a systematic review was conducted to reveal the insights of EMI implementation in Indonesia qualitatively using a replicable search strategy based on the predetermined criteria of inclusion and exclusion. In this sense, PRISMA (The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) model (2015) was used, aiming to report the synthesis of previous studies systematically. The model was selected since it contains the accepted standard guideline for presenting review results from published papers. This standard guideline helps us escalate the process of quality assurance so that the methodology can be adequately replicable and scientific. Particularly, the PRISMA model was applied in four main stages: (1) search strategy from the information sources or databases; (2) screening, based on the eligibility criteria; (3) final evaluation and inclusion by examining the full-texts; and (4) synthesis of the data items.<\/p>\n The paper selection process started with determining several keywords such as \u201cEMI\u201d OR \u201cEnglish as Medium of Instruction\u201d AND \u201cIndonesia\u201d OR \u201cIndonesian\u201d OR \u201cIndonesian context\u201d. The keywords were inserted into PublishorPerish (PoP) software. Articles, books, and proceedings written in English or Indonesian were included, except theses. Institutional theses were excluded because most of the results from these cannot be publicly accessible. Additionally, thesis writing has a lower quality of refereeing than other academic papers, raising issues on the validity and reliability of the methodology and results reported in it. Some information was obtained, which comprises: publisher\u2019s name, article URL, ISSN, Vol, Issue. The software generated 980 entries from 2012-2022.<\/p>\n After the metadata were extracted into an Excel file, the papers were sorted out, resulting in the exclusion of 800 titles due to the following reasons.<\/p>\n Prior to the next stage, the remaining 180 titles were first analyzed to address the first research question regarding the trends of EMI studies in the Asia context. Then, a double search strategy was applied to ensure the accuracy of the titles by conducting a manual search in Google Scholar and Google. The manual cross-checking strategy in Google Scholar yielded an additional 24 studies, resulting in 204 titles included for final evaluation. To ensure the credibility of the manual cross-checking results, the team conducted a second search cross-checking process, adding fourteen more studies in 2023. The decision to add articles in 2023 is to obtain a more current and comprehensive portrait of research findings. The final inclusion of studies in the first stage was 214 studies. Furthermore, all studies were reviewed again by reading the abstract and the content carefully, excluding 44 papers due to: (1) duplications; (2) not research-based; (3) institutional papers such as theses, which cannot be accessed as well; and (4) Indonesian authors but discussing other countries, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand. Further, as many as 105 titles were excluded due to issues with the quality of the content, such as EMI not as the research focus, L1 use being more focused on teaching English or English language teaching, which was connected to the practice of EMI. The final number of inclusions is 65 papers to proceed to the content analysis stage. See the Appendix<\/a> for a graphical view of the entire process.<\/p>\n The data generated using the PublishorPerish software were analyzed to identify research trends on the implementation of EMI in the Indonesian context over the last decade. The trends derived from the results include: (1) a trend line of publications on this topic in the last ten years, including those published in 2023; (2) research participants; (3) research approaches and data collection techniques; (4) level of education being examined; and (5) research foci.<\/p>\n Once the bibliometric analysis was done, Williams\u2019 (2015) content analysis process was adopted to analyze the content of each paper. The coding scheme was first formulated based on the coding results of several papers included for the content review by reading and reviewing the entire article, particularly the results and discussion sections. Table 1 below exhibits the samples of coding results in the present study.<\/p>\n Table 1. Samples of coding results<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nUniversitas Pendidikan Indonesia
\n<lubis_ah![\"atmark\"](\"http:\/\/www.tesl-ej.org\/atmark.png\")
upi.edu><\/p>\n
\nUniversitas Islam 45 Bekasi, Indonesia
\n<reza.adaragmail.com><\/p>\nAbstract<\/h3>\n
Background for this Study<\/h3>\n
Literature Review<\/h3>\n
The Concept of EMI<\/h4>\n
The Status Quo of EMI in Indonesia and Other Asian Countries<\/h4>\n
\nb. Who were the participants?
\nc. What research approaches and data collection techniques were used?
\nd. What education levels were examined?
\ne. What were the research foci?<\/p>\nMethods<\/h3>\n
Design of this Study<\/h4>\n
Data Sources and Search Strategy<\/h4>\n
Eligibility Criteria and Selection of Studies<\/h4>\n
\n
Bibliometric and Content Analysis Procedure<\/h4>\n
![\"Trends](\"https:\/\/tesl-ej.org\/ej115\/a8pix\/image1.png\")
![\"Distribution](\"https:\/\/tesl-ej.org\/ej115\/a8pix\/image2.png\")
![\"The](\"https:\/\/tesl-ej.org\/ej115\/a8pix\/image3.png\")
![\"Education](\"https:\/\/tesl-ej.org\/ej115\/a8pix\/image4.png\")
![\"The](\"https:\/\/tesl-ej.org\/ej115\/a8pix\/image5.png\")