2.2 Discrepancies Between Promotional Discourse and Pedagogical Feasibility
The institutional legitimacy of English-Medium Instruction in public higher education is frequently negotiated through promotional representations rather than sustained pedagogical infrastructure. Institutional discourse tends to frame English-taught curricula as direct conduits to global competitiveness, enhanced human capital, and international institutional ranking prestige [2]. However, the analytical scrutiny of public-university accreditation models reveals an acute divergence between outward branding and educational execution. While formal regulatory guidelines stipulate verifiable learning outcomes and instructional rigor, the actual operationalisation of EMI often encounters structural language hurdles that compromise disciplinary comprehension. When public institutions adopt EMI primarily as a symbolic signal of modernisation in a competitive education market, foundational curricular support mechanisms receive insufficient formal auditing [2]. Mitigating this systemic divergence necessitates structural pedagogical interventions, such as task-based communicative environments and blended learning designs, which allow content mastering alongside linguistic mediation [6]. Without formally integrating such instructional parameters into statutory accreditation frameworks, public degree programmes risk retaining superficial compliance while failing to deliver substantive educational quality.