In this post, we talk to Dr. Alina Reșceanu of the University of Craiova about the history and current status of EMI in her home country, Romania.
The Oxford EMI team first met Dr. Alina Reșceanu, Senior Lecturer at the Department of Modern Languages of the Faculty of Letters, University of Craiova, at the 6th EMI Symposium in Oxford. Simon was delighted to continue his conversation with her online about the history and current status of EMI in Romania.
EMI in Romania
Simon: Your case study focussed on strategies surrounding the implementation of internationalisation and English Medium Instruction (EMI) in Romania. For those less familiar with it, could you outline what the situation in Romania is?
Dr. Reșceanu: Romania is an interesting case because EMI has grown mainly as part of institutional internationalisation, rather than through a long-standing, coherent national policy framework. For years, the system was marked by a gap between strategic ambition and actual support: internationalisation was widely discussed as a priority, but institutions often lacked dedicated budgets, shared definitions and sufficient language and pedagogy support for staff and administration. At the same time, EMI has continued to expand, especially where universities see it as a way to improve visibility, mobility, graduate employability and international partnerships. In that sense, Romania is a system in transition: the interest is real, the rationale is strong, but implementation has been uneven.
Simon: What are one or two key factors that make this region a particularly interesting case study for institutional internationalisation?
Dr. Reșceanu: One key factor is exactly this tension between policy and practice. Romania offers a very revealing example of what happens when universities are encouraged to internationalise, but the support structures are still developing. That makes it possible to see very clearly which initiatives succeed because of genuine institutional commitment and local collaboration, and which remain mostly rhetorical.
A second factor is the broader socio-economic context, especially the pressure of ‘brain drain’ in fields such as IT or Medicine. I think that universities in Romania are just not internationalising because they have to; they are doing so because they also try to keep talented students in the country and prepare them for a highly globalised labour market. In my opinion, that is what gives EMI a very practical urgency.
Simon: What initially sparked your interest in the intersection of internationalisation and EMI in the context of Romanian Higher Education (HE)?
Dr. Reșceanu: My interest comes from the meeting point between language, pedagogy and institutional change. My earlier work has been in linguistics and English-language teaching, but I have also worked on English for Specific Purposes (ESP) and on educational projects with a strong international and interdisciplinary dimension, on topics related to transversal skills, sustainability and global citizenship. So EMI felt like a natural extension of those concerns: it is where language policy, classroom practice, employability and international cooperation all intersect.
Key findings
Simon: Your paper discusses institutional strategies connected to internationalisation and EMI. Could you highlight any successful strategies you came across?
Dr. Reșceanu: The clearest successful strategies were the ones that linked EMI to concrete institutional and labour-market realities, rather than treating it as a branding exercise. In the University of Craiova case, the strongest example was the long-running English-taught BA in Computer Science, which has been in place since 1993. Its success seems to come from continuity, integration into faculty and university strategy, well-structured placement opportunities and sustained engagement with employers through regular meetings, lectures and practical activities. The programme also appears to benefit from a strong balance between theory and practice, which is crucial if EMI is to be seen as academically and professionally relevant.
Simon: What was the most surprising or unexpected finding regarding the strategies institutions are currently employing to internationalise?
Dr. Reșceanu: For me, one striking finding was that the strongest alignment between students and staff appeared around the more institutional or pragmatic objectives of EMI, especially preparing students for the global job market and building partnerships with universities abroad. What was more surprising was that the divergence appeared around objectives that we might assume are central to internationalisation, such as creating a multicultural environment or improving intercultural competence. In other words, the economic and professional rationale for EMI seemed more immediately shared and visible than the broader intercultural one.
Simon: How aware were staff and students of these strategies and aims?
Dr. Reșceanu: They were aware, but not always in exactly the same way. The study suggests that both groups recognised the main institutional aims, especially those connected to employability, partnerships and visibility. At the same time, students and staff did not rank all objectives similarly, and that is revealing: it suggests that awareness exists, but it is filtered through different everyday experiences. Students seem more attuned to the personal implications of EMI, while staff tend to respond more strongly to objectives already embedded in formal institutional strategy. So I would say awareness is present, but it is uneven and layered rather than fully shared.
Student and faculty experience of EMI
Simon: Considering both your research and your own teaching context, how prepared are content teachers in Romania to teach their courses in English?
Dr. Reșceanu: I believe preparation varies considerably. There are certainly good examples of lecturers who are fully capable of teaching specialised content in English, especially in programmes that have a longer tradition and where EMI has become part of the academic culture. But at system level, the literature reviewed in the article points to recurring challenges: uneven English proficiency, limited support for academic and administrative staff and courses or materials that are not always sufficiently adapted to the language of instruction. So I would not present readiness as a simple yes-or-no issue. In Romania, there is capacity, but it is distributed unevenly and depends heavily on institutional culture, context and available support.
Simon: What support and training mechanisms, if any, are in place for them?
Dr. Reșceanu: The most meaningful support mechanisms are usually local and programme-based rather than fully systemic. In the case discussed in the article, support comes through collaboration among stakeholders, employer engagement, regular meetings, training sessions and the broader culture of an established English-taught programme. But this is not enough. I strongly believe that EMI works best when it is supported by solid institutional strategies related to continuous professional development and interdisciplinary exchange, not only by individual language competence. But one important takeaway from the article is that Romania still needs more structured curriculum guidance and quality assurance mechanisms if EMI is to become more sustainable.
Simon: Does this form part of the strategies you found in your case study?
Dr. Reșceanu: Yes, although sometimes indirectly. The case study does not present teacher training as a stand-alone important policy; instead, it shows that effective EMI depends on a cluster of supporting conditions: competent staff, curriculum review, student support services, collaboration with employers and sustained institutional planning. In other words, support for teachers is part of a successful EMI programme, even when it is not always labelled explicitly as “EMI training.” That is precisely why I think future policy needs to make this dimension more visible and more systematic.
Recommendations & looking to the future
Simon: Towards the end of your case study, you make some suggestions in relation to the future of HE in Romania. If you could give one concrete piece of advice to a Romanian HE institution president or administrator based on your findings, what would it be?
Dr. Reșceanu: My advice would be this: do not treat EMI as a symbolic sign of internationalisation, as a label, treat it as a system. It’s not enough to offer courses in English. It is very important to align strategy, staff, curriculum, student support, quality assurance and employer engagement from the beginning. The strongest programmes are not simply the ones taught in English, but the ones where EMI is connected to a clear academic purpose and strong collaboration among stakeholders. If that alignment is missing, EMI risks creating expectations it cannot meet.
Simon: How do you see the landscape of internationalisation and EMI in Romanian HE changing in the next five to ten years?
Dr. Reșceanu: I think EMI will definitely continue to grow, but probably in a more focused and mature way. We’ll likely see more development in areas like technology and business, where internationalisation is already strong. But at the same time, there will be more attention to quality, teacher support, student experience and outcomes. So the focus will hopefully shift from “how many programmes do we have in English?” to “how well do these programmes actually work?” And I think that shift is going to be really important for the future of higher education in Romania.
Thank you
We’d like to thank Dr. Reșceanu for sharing these valuable insights and photos with us. It’s very encouraging to see that the research she has conducted matches with the ethos of Oxford EMI’s training programmes, with a focus on ongoing CPD and collaboration between all stakeholders, from planning to post-delivery stages.
Blog subject
Dr. Alina Reșceanu is Senior Lecturer at the Department of Modern Languages of the Faculty of Letters, University of Craiova. She has published two books, many articles and studies and participated in numerous national and international conferences on theoretical and applied linguistics. Her main interests focus on topics related to English as a Medium of Instruction, language acquisition and language learning, contrastive grammar, and global English(es).
A selection of Dr. Reșceanu‘s publications:
Reșceanu, A., Preda, V., & Dumitrașcu, E. (2021). Institutional Strategies on Internationalisation and English-Medium Instruction in Romanian Higher Education: A Case Study. Annals of the University of Craiova. 87-105
Reșceanu, A., Preda, V., & Dumitrașcu, E. (2023). Foreign Language Proficiency Reflected in English-Medium Instruction Settings. Mirari, Mirabilia, Mirror. Reflections of Reality in Literature and Linguistics. 223-239.
Reșceanu, A., Preda, V., & Dumitrașcu, E. (2025) Instances of Romanian-English Code-Switching in English-Medium Instruction Settings: A Case Study. Annals of the University of Craiova. 90-108.