5 Pohdinta ja institutionaaliset kehityssuositukset
The divergence between promotional institutional narratives and the psychological realities of non-native instructional environments constitutes a primary driver of support service utilization. Critical examination of higher education branding demonstrates that institutions position English-medium instruction as an uncompromised standard of global prestige and career enhancement [1]. However, this institutional framing frequently obscures the structural and affective disparities experienced within the learning environment. When language policies are instituted primarily as marketing mechanisms rather than pedagogically scaffolded transitions, students encounter pervasive communicative obstacles that impede academic self-efficacy and intensify psychological stress [3]. Scholarly discourse highlights that while instructional modifications like blended environments can mitigate communicative barriers [4], the broader institutional apparatus often fails to provide parallel adjustments in mental health infrastructure. The resulting friction manifests as increased pressure on campus counseling centers, which are tasked with addressing distress stemming from linguistic marginalization and identity dissonance. A critical limitation in the existing literature is the tendency to evaluate language acquisition outcomes independently of institutional counseling capacity. Consequently, the psychosocial consequences of rapid curricular transition remain underaddressed within comprehensive campus resource planning.