English medium instruction (EMI) is booming, but the way we assess it is stuck in the past. Universities continue to rely on English test scores to decide who is ‘ready’ for EMI and to judge the success of their programmes. Yet recent work shows that these scores capture only a fraction of what matters. True readiness depends less on general proficiency and more on academic literacy; that is, the ability to think, read, and write within disciplinary conventions. Shifting assessment toward literacy gives a more accurate picture of how students learn and participate, making EMI a fairer, more inclusive model of higher education.
The limits of proficiency
In most EMI universities, readiness is judged by a number. Students who meet IELTS or TOEFL thresholds are seen as prepared, and those who fall short are assumed to struggle. Yet studies across contexts show that high English test scores reveal little about how students actually perform. Many still struggle to follow readings, write critically, or engage in discussion. These difficulties have more to do with the unfamiliar ways academic knowledge is expressed and organised than with grammar or vocabulary.
Proficiency tests assess general communicative ability, not how students build arguments, cite evidence, or take an academic stance. Treating them as proxies for readiness risks excluding multilingual students whose experiences with academic genres differ from those assumed by standardised tests. In effect, proficiency becomes a gatekeeper rather than a guide for learning.
Preparedness as academic literacy
Academic literacy provides a more useful way to understand what students need to succeed in EMI. It includes disciplinary reading and writing, but also the ability to question, analyse, and contribute to academic conversations. In many contexts, students have limited experience of these practices, even in their first language. What they often lack is not English knowledge, but familiarity with how arguments are built, what counts as evidence, or how academic texts signal stance and evaluation.
In my work with EMI programmes in Japan, this broader view has led to courses that mirror disciplinary demands. Business students write case studies, engineers explain data, and social scientists practise argumentation and critical review. These literacy-based approaches treat language, content, and thinking as connected parts of learning rather than as separate strands.
This shift also brings equity benefits. When literacy becomes the focus, students’ multilingual resources are seen as assets. They draw on prior knowledge and L1 strategies to make sense of new academic conventions. Assessment in this model supports learning instead of filtering access.
Insights from the Future of English project
The same logic underpinned our British Council Future of English project, which examined digitally mediated EMI classrooms in the UK, Malaysia, and Japan. We analysed teacher-student interaction through speech, chat, and gesture, developing the Multimodal EMI Corpus (MEMIC) to capture authentic communication. The findings were clear: successful participation depended on far more than grammatical accuracy. Students who could elaborate ideas, respond to others, and use the chat to build interaction showed higher engagement and learning gains.
From this evidence, the team designed prototype ‘EMI readiness’ tasks that reflect authentic classroom communication. Instead of testing isolated language skills, these low-stakes tasks asked students to justify opinions, interpret data, and collaborate in short online activities. Teachers used the tasks to start discussions about what effective EMI participation looks like in practice. Such models demonstrate how assessment can be repurposed to support learning, aligning with the British Council’s focus on equitable and culturally responsive practice.
Rethinking assessment priorities
Both projects point to the same conclusion: the future of EMI assessment lies in literacy, not proficiency. Institutions could begin by adopting more diagnostic tools that reveal how students read, write, and communicate in their chosen fields. Short writing samples or group discussions can highlight literacy strengths more effectively than test scores.
At course level, formative assessment can track how students build their disciplinary voice over time. When content lecturers and language specialists collaborate on assessment design, they can ensure that criteria value clarity of argument and appropriate use of evidence alongside linguistic accuracy. This helps students understand what counts as quality work in their disciplines and gives teachers a clearer basis for feedback.
Teacher training is another key area. Many EMI lecturers still feel unprepared to teach or assess literacy. Professional development programmes can help them recognise how language and disciplinary knowledge intersect and how to make those expectations explicit for students. Building assessment literacy among teachers is just as important as building academic literacy among students.
Why this matters
Reframing assessment in this way has wider implications for fairness and quality in international higher education. When universities rely on narrow measures of proficiency, they risk privileging students from certain linguistic and educational backgrounds. A literacy-based approach opens EMI to a more diverse group of learners and provides a clearer picture of what support they need to thrive.
Digital learning environments have shown that academic success now depends on a broader set of communicative skills, from managing online discussions to using multimodal resources to express ideas. Assessing these skills means valuing the full range of ways that students use English in real academic contexts.
Looking ahead
The next step is to embed these insights into institutional policy and everyday classroom practice. That means using assessment to inform teaching, not just to select or rank students. It means bringing language specialists and subject lecturers together to co-design assessment rubrics, co-mark student work, and share insights on how disciplinary reasoning is communicated in English. Joint workshops and moderation meetings can help align expectations across departments and make literacy support part of normal teaching practice.
Moving from proficiency to literacy is a simple idea with far-reaching effects. It aligns assessment with the realities of academic work, acknowledges the multilingual nature of today’s classrooms, and keeps learning, rather than testing, at the centre of EMI.
About the author:
Jim McKinley is Professor of Applied Linguistics at the UCL Institute of Education, where he researches English-medium instruction, academic literacy, and assessment in international higher education. He has published widely on EMI policy and practice and is currently a Chief Editor of the journals TESOL Quarterly and System. His recent collaboration with the British Council’s Future of English programme examined how digital EMI classrooms shape communication, participation, and academic literacy development.