{"paper_id":"05fecd73-bc2e-4fa2-8f56-9816b65bdedd","body_text":"Medium of Instruction in a State-Owned Education Institution: Policy–Practice Alignment, Ideologies, and Management | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Case Report Medium of Instruction in a State-Owned Education Institution: Policy–Practice Alignment, Ideologies, and Management Ariel E. San Jose, Alvin O. Cayogyog This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8492717/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study explored the management of the Medium of Instruction (MoI) in a state-owned tertiary educational institution, using a qualitative case study approach anchored on Spolsky’s Language Policy Framework (2004), which identifies three interrelated components of language policy: practices, beliefs or ideologies, and management. Ten participants were involved, comprising five faculty members from different academic institutes and five students from various courses. Findings revealed that faculty members demonstrated multilingual flexibility by blending English, Filipino, and Cebuano to enhance comprehension and inclusivity, even when institutional policy prescribed English-only instruction. Teachers employed strategies such as code-switching, translation, simplification, and visual aids to make lessons more accessible, particularly in technical or abstract subjects. This adaptability reflected both a commitment to student learning and responsiveness to diverse linguistic backgrounds. However, results also highlighted a clear misalignment between policy and practice, as rigid institutional mandates often failed to account for classroom realities, leaving educators to negotiate between compliance and student needs. While some faculty refined their approaches through experience and student feedback, others benefited from professional development programs that introduced inclusive strategies such as translanguaging and scaffolding. Despite these efforts, challenges persisted due to curriculum constraints, ideological divides, and limited institutional support, with some teachers expressing uncertainty or lack of awareness about how to implement the MoI policy effectively. Overall, faculty practices underscored resourcefulness and values-driven pedagogy, ensuring that language served as a bridge to understanding rather than a barrier to participation. Educational Philosophy and Theory Linguistics Medium of instruction state-owned education policy–practice alignment ideologies management INTRODUCTION The problem of the Medium of Instruction (MoI) has long been debated in education, particularly in multilingual societies where language policies intersect with pedagogy, identity, and equity. The MoI serves not only as a vehicle for transmitting knowledge but also as a tool that shapes comprehension, critical thinking, and academic success (Ichou & Fathi, 2022; Osei-Boateng, 2022). However, when there is a mismatch between the language of instruction and the linguistic competence of learners, education becomes less effective and often exclusionary (McRae, 2022; Mohanty, 2019). Scholars argue that poorly managed MoI policies can exacerbate inequality, limit classroom participation, and hinder deeper learning outcomes (Heugh, 2015). Globally, the rise of English as a Medium of Instruction (EMoI) in higher education has accelerated, driven by internationalization, academic mobility, and the perceived economic value of English (Dearden & Beaumont, 2024; Richard & Pun, 2023). Yet, this global expansion has been accompanied by persistent pedagogical and linguistic challenges. In particular, students and instructors in non-Anglophone contexts often lack sufficient English proficiency, creating barriers to content mastery and classroom engagement (Li & Pei, 2024). The linguistic heterogeneity of EMoI classrooms further complicates teaching and learning, as English is not systematically supported through scaffolding or supplementary resources (Aizawa et al., 2024). Without such support, learners frequently struggle to follow lectures, decode academic texts, and express themselves in discipline-specific discourse (Nithideechaiwarachok et al., 2022). Evidence from different countries illustrates these challenges. In Japan, university students often experience confusion and reduced participation due to fast-paced lectures and insufficient academic vocabulary (Rose & McKinley, 2018). In Brazil and the Netherlands, learners have difficulty mastering discipline-specific terminology and articulating complex arguments in English (Martínez, 2016). In Turkey, EMoI is associated with poor classroom interaction, reduced comprehension, and diminished academic performance (Kamaşak et al., 2021). Similarly, in Indonesia, while teachers and policymakers refined curricula in response to global EMoI trends, the gap between educator and student perspectives led to mixed results (Widiastuti, 2025). These international experiences suggest that EMoI, when implemented without robust pedagogical strategies and linguistic scaffolding, risks deepening inequalities in educational outcomes (Shepard & Rose, 2023). In the Philippines, English as MoI has a strong historical and constitutional foundation. Section 7, Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution mandates English as an official medium of instruction, while Section 6 reaffirms Filipino as the national language, reflecting the country’s effort to balance national identity and global participation (Uys et al., 2007). This bilingual policy has enabled Filipinos to engage internationally while preserving cultural identity (Zeng & Li, 2023). However, the distribution of EMoI benefits is highly uneven. Studies reveal that urban schools, often better funded, have access to trained English teachers, richer instructional materials, and greater exposure to English in daily life, while rural and remote areas face resource shortages, larger class sizes, and teachers who themselves may lack confidence in English instruction (Parba, 2025). This rural-urban divide has significant consequences. For example, Tupas and Martin (2017) found that urban students, particularly those in private or well-resourced public schools, were more likely to participate actively in EMoI classrooms. Conversely, rural students frequently reverted to local languages to cope with limited comprehension. Gonzales (2024) further documented that students in rural Mindanao faced persistent EMoI difficulties, leading to disengagement and superficial learning, despite teachers’ efforts to simplify content or code-switch. These findings align with global evidence suggesting that EMoI policies, without adequate support structures, exacerbate educational inequities (Heugh, 2023). Within Philippine higher education, the problem of MoI management is particularly pressing. While Executive Order No. 210 encourages English as the primary medium in tertiary institutions, implementation is often inconsistent across regions and institutions. Many faculty members lack training in bilingual or multilingual pedagogy, and instructional resources to support EMoI are limited. These challenges underscore the need for localized MoI strategies that account for regional disparities, as well as sustained faculty development programs that strengthen language pedagogy and content delivery. Moreover, longitudinal research is needed to assess how MoI policies affect learning outcomes, equity, and student success over time. Research Questions This study aimed to explore management of Medium of Instruction (MoI) of a state-owned tertiary educational institution. Specifically, it sought answers to the following questions: 1) What mechanisms does the state-owned educational institution use to manage and enforce the Medium of Instruction Policy?; 2) How do faculty adjust their teaching/language practices with challenges in implementing the Medium of Instruction policy?; and 3) What insights can be shared by teachers about the alignment or misalignment between language management, actual language practices, and prevailing language beliefs? Theoretical Lens This study is anchored on the Spolsky’s Language Policy Framework (2004). The framework proposes that language policy consists of three interrelated components: language practices, language beliefs or ideologies, and language management. Language practices refer to the habitual ways people use language in daily life, including multilingual behavior and code-switching. Language beliefs or ideologies encompass the shared attitudes and assumptions about language, such as notions of correctness or prestige. Language management involves deliberate efforts to influence language use, typically through official policies or institutional planning. METHOD Research Design This study used a qualitative single case study. Case study is a qualitative research strategy that investigates phenomena within their real-life context, emphasizing depth rather than breadth (Annamalah, 2024). It is regarded as an empirical inquiry that explores contemporary issues in detail, particularly when the boundaries between the phenomenon and its context are not clearly evident (Evald & Freytag, 2024). This approach is appropriate for research on the medium of instruction because it enables an in-depth examination of how language policies and practices unfold within a specific institutional setting. By focusing on one bounded case, the study captures the complexity of experiences, attitudes, and challenges that might be overlooked in broader surveys, thereby providing rich contextual insights into how the medium of instruction shapes teaching, learning, and institutional culture. Research Participants This study had a total participants of 10 participants; five faculty members from different academic institute and five students of different courses. Creswell (2023) suggest that qualitative case studies often include 4-5 participants for a single case. Moreover, each participant was given pseudonym for to hide their identity and confidentiality. Locale of the Study The study was conducted in a state-owned college given the pseudonym Megara College. It nestles along the coast of a Gulf. Megara College is an academic institution of higher learning, shaping the future of rural and maritime communities. Originally founded as a barangay high school, it has evolved into a state college with a mandate rooted in agricultural innovation, marine science, and inclusive education. Its campuses and its satellite sites, serve as hubs for transformative instruction, research, and extension work. With programs spanning agri-business, fisheries, teacher development, and environmental sciences, Megara College cultivates not only knowledge but community empowerment. Like its mythic namesake, Megara College endures quietly strategic, deeply committed, and ever poised for renewal. Data Gathering Procedure The data gathering procedure of this study was guided by Braun and Clarke’s (2006) framework of thematic analysis, applied systematically to explore the management of the Medium of Instruction (MoI) in a state-owned tertiary educational institution. Following their six-phase process, the study began with familiarization through the collection and repeated reading of interview transcripts, institutional documents, and policy materials to gain a deep understanding of the data. Next, initial codes were generated to capture meaningful features related to institutional mechanisms, faculty adjustments, and teacher insights on MoI implementation. These codes were then organized into themes that reflected broader patterns, such as policy enforcement strategies, pedagogical adaptations, and the alignment or misalignment between language management, classroom practices, and prevailing beliefs. The themes were subsequently reviewed and refined to ensure coherence and distinctiveness, followed by defining and naming each theme to clearly articulate its scope and relevance to the research questions. Finally, the themes were synthesized and reported in a narrative form that highlights how institutional policies, faculty responses, and teacher perspectives intersect in the management of MoI. Ethical Consideration In conducting this study, strict adherence to ethical standards was observed to protect the rights and welfare of students, teachers, and deans. The paper was submitted for Ethics Review. Confidentiality was ensured by anonymizing through giving pseudonyms and removing identifying details from transcripts. Voluntariness of participation was emphasized, with participants informed that their involvement was entirely optional and that they could decline to answer any question without consequence. A clear protocol for withdrawal from the study was provided, allowing participants to discontinue at any stage without penalty or negative implications. Prior to data collection, participants were briefed on the objectives of the study, the procedures involved, and the potential benefits and risks, ensuring informed consent was obtained. RESULTS Mechanism Used to Manage and Enforce Medium of Instruction Policy Multilingual Instruction Enhances Comprehension At Megara, multilingual instruction is widely recognized by faculty as a key strategy to enhance student comprehension. For instance, Nobody , who teaches Information Technology subjects, directly states, “Comprehension is evident when I code switch,” emphasizing how alternating between English, Filipino, and Cebuano helps bridge understanding gaps in technical content. Similarly, Batman , who teaches Life and Works of Dr. Jose Rizal and Music, affirms, “Students comprehend the lessons better when I use a combination of English and Cebuano,” suggesting that a blended language approach aligns better with students’ actual proficiencies. Robotech , teaching Understanding the Self, adds, “Allowing multilingual instructions… students can understand better,” reinforcing the idea that rigid English-only instruction may hinder learning. These confessions reflect a shared pedagogical insight, while institutional policy may prescribe English as the medium of instruction, faculty prioritize comprehension and engagement by adapting their language use. This multilingual strategy not only supports student learning but also demonstrates how educators balance policy requirements with the linguistic realities of their classrooms. Faculty Development Through Experience At Megara, faculty development is often shaped more by direct classroom experience than by formal training programs. Educators learn to refine their instructional language and strategies through trial, reflection, and student feedback. This experiential approach is evident in the statement by Nobody who shares, “Actual experience showed me how to give instructions and what language to use.” This highlights how real-time teaching challenges and student responses guide the evolution of effective practices. Nobody further explains, “I cannot say my instructions are effective unless I see outputs that meet expectations,” emphasizing that instructional success is measured not by adherence to policy or training, but by tangible student outcomes. These insights suggest that faculty rely heavily on their own classroom observations to adjust language use, often blending English, Filipino, and Cebuano, to ensure students grasp the material. Faculty Development Support At Megara, faculty development programs play a meaningful role in equipping educators with inclusive language strategies that support multilingual instruction. These structured opportunities, such as workshops, seminars, and peer-sharing sessions, enable teachers to reflect on their language practices and adapt them to meet diverse student needs. Boss Kenchen , who teaches Radio Drama and Documentary, shares a detailed account, “Faculty development has been helpful in equipping me with teaching strategies that are sensitive to students’ varying language proficiencies. Through workshops, seminars, and peer-sharing sessions, I gained exposure to approaches such as translanguaging, scaffolding, and contextualized instruction, which I now apply to make lessons more accessible.” This statement illustrates how institutional efforts have helped faculty move beyond traditional English-only instruction and embrace flexible, student-centered approaches. By fostering awareness and providing practical tools, these development programs empower educators to navigate bilingual and multilingual classrooms more effectively. Boss Kenchen’s narrative suggests that while not universal, such support is typical among faculty who actively engage in professional growth initiatives. Student Language Preferences Matter At Megara, faculty observations consistently highlight the importance of language comfort in fostering student engagement and expression. Teachers note that students are more confident and participative when allowed to use their local dialect or a mix of languages during instruction. This is clearly expressed by BossKenchen , who teaches Radio Drama & Documentary: “Many students are more comfortable expressing their ideas or opinion.” His statement reflects how linguistic familiarity encourages students to articulate thoughts more freely, especially in creative or discussion-based subjects. Similarly, Battered Wife observes, “They can adapt and are comfortable in their local dialect,” suggesting that students’ ease with their native language supports better comprehension and classroom interaction. These insights reveal that language choice is not merely a medium of instruction, it is a tool for inclusion, confidence-building, and meaningful participation. The narrative points out a key pedagogical principle that when students feel linguistically secure, they are more likely to engage, contribute, and succeed. Faculty responses affirm that embracing multilingual practices is essential to creating responsive and equitable learning environments. Institutional Mechanisms At Megara, institutional support for the Medium of Instruction Policy appears limited and inconsistent, as reflected in several faculty narratives. Battered Wife , a Science teacher, plainly states, “None,” when asked about mechanisms used to manage and enforce the policy, indicating a complete absence of formal guidance. This sentiment is echoed in her follow-up remark, “There is no support. I took the initiative to improve my own,” revealing a reliance on personal effort rather than institutional backing. Similarly, Nobody , who teaches IT subjects, points to a “Lack of clear institutional guidelines,” suggesting that ambiguity in policy implementation leaves educators to interpret and apply language strategies independently. These statements underscore a broader issue, without structured support or clear directives, faculty are left to navigate bilingual or multilingual instruction on their own, often relying on experience and intuition rather than coordinated institutional efforts. Curriculum Constraints At Megara, some faculty members point to curriculum structure, particularly rigid syllabi and time constraints, as barriers to flexible language use in the classroom. These institutional limitations restrict their ability to adjust instruction based on students’ comprehension levels and linguistic needs. Batman , who teaches Life and Works of Dr. Jose Rizal and Teaching Music in Elementary Grades , directly references this challenge, stating: “Syllabi, Modules,” as mechanisms that shape how the Medium of Instruction Policy is enforced. He further explains, “Time limitations and students’ comprehension skills,” suggesting that the pressure to cover prescribed content within limited time frames often prevents the use of adaptive, multilingual strategies. This narrative reveals a tension between policy-driven curriculum design and the practical realities of student learning. While faculty recognize the value of using mixed languages to support comprehension, institutional structures may limit their ability to do so consistently. Faculty Adjustment in Teaching/Language Practices with Challenges in Implementing the Medium of Instruction Policy Multilingual Flexibility in Instruction At Megara College, multilingual flexibility in instruction emerges as a defining feature of classroom practice. Teachers actively use English, Filipino, and Cebuano to enhance comprehension and foster a more inclusive and engaging learning environment. This approach reflects not only a pedagogical strategy but also a deep awareness of students’ linguistic backgrounds and the realities of classroom diversity. Robotech exemplifies a balanced stance, stating, “Although I use multilingual and allow my students to do the same, I always encourage them to use English.” This reflects a thoughtful negotiation between institutional expectations and the practical needs of learners. By promoting English while allowing space for other languages, Robotech supports language development without alienating students who may struggle with English as a second or third language. Batman echoes this dual commitment, explaining, “I comply with the policy by using English formally, but I also value student diversity by integrating Filipino and Cebuano.” His statement reveals a conscious effort to uphold formal language policies while recognizing the importance of cultural and linguistic inclusivity. By weaving Filipino and Cebuano into instruction, Batman validates students’ identities and enhances their engagement. BossKenchen takes a more targeted approach, emphasizing the strategic use of the mother tongue, “I incorporate the students’ first language as a bridge for comprehension when necessary.” This highlights the cognitive benefits of using familiar language to scaffold understanding, especially when introducing complex or abstract concepts. His method underscores the role of language as a tool for learning rather than a barrier. Battered wife offers a candid reflection on the challenges of multilingual instruction, describing her method as a “Challenging adjustment and flexible in my approach.” Her words suggest a willingness to adapt and respond to the evolving needs of her students. Flexibility, in this context, becomes a form of responsiveness, an essential quality in linguistically diverse classrooms. Meanwhile, Nobody’s succinct remark, “I translate,” points to a straightforward yet effective strategy. While less elaborate than others, this approach ensures that students can access content in a language they understand, reinforcing the practical value of multilingual support. Use of Code-Switching and Visual Aids In addressing language barriers within the classroom, teachers at Megara College demonstrate a proactive and resourceful approach, employing code-switching and visual aids as key strategies to enhance student comprehension. These tools serve not only to simplify instruction but also to make abstract concepts more accessible, especially for learners grappling with unfamiliar academic language. Batman outlines a comprehensive instructional method, stating, “Code-switching, simplifying explanations, visual aids, scaffolding…” His list reflects a layered and intentional approach to teaching, where multiple strategies are combined to support diverse learners. By integrating these techniques, Batman ensures that students are not left behind due to linguistic challenges, but instead are guided through content in a way that builds understanding step by step. BossKenchen echoes this sentiment, sharing, “Encourage code-switching… use visual aids, diagrams…” His emphasis on visual representation suggests a deliberate effort to make complex ideas more concrete. Diagrams and other visual tools help bridge the gap between verbal instruction and conceptual grasp, especially in subjects that rely heavily on abstract reasoning. Battered wife also highlights the importance of these strategies, noting, “Sometimes I used code-switching, visual aids…” She particularly applies them in science, where hands-on activities and visual demonstrations complement verbal explanations. This approach reflects an understanding that learning is multifaceted and that combining linguistic and visual input can significantly improve student engagement and retention. Robotech takes a culturally responsive route, stating, “I explained or discuss in Cebuano.” By using the students’ native language, Robotech enables learners to process information more comfortably and confidently. This method not only aids comprehension but also affirms the students’ linguistic identity, fostering a more inclusive classroom environment. In contrast, Nobody offers a more spontaneous approach, admitting, “I don’t use specific strategy, I will just do whatever is applicable.” While less structured, this flexibility allows for real-time responsiveness to student needs. It suggests a willingness to adapt based on the situation, even if it lacks the intentional layering seen in other teachers’ methods. Balancing Policy with Student Needs In the context of language instruction at Megara College, teachers exhibit a conscientious effort to balance institutional mandates with the linguistic realities of their students. This theme of compliance paired with accommodation reflects a typical but meaningful approach to classroom language use, where educators navigate formal expectations while remaining sensitive to student needs. Batman articulates this dual commitment clearly, stating, “I comply with the policy… while still valuing students’ diverse linguistic needs.” His statement underscores a deliberate effort to uphold official language requirements, likely emphasizing English as the mandated medium, while also creating space for linguistic diversity. This approach reflects an understanding that rigid adherence to policy alone may hinder student engagement and comprehension, especially in multilingual settings. BossKenchen takes a scaffolded approach to language learning, explaining, “I create spaces where students can use their preferred language…” before transitioning to the mandated medium. His strategy allows students to first express themselves in a language they are comfortable with, building confidence and understanding, before gradually shifting to the formal language of instruction. This method not only respects students’ linguistic backgrounds but also supports their development in the target language through a gradual and supportive process. Battered wife offers a reflective perspective, sharing, “Bridging policies by respecting policies and acknowledging students’ local languages.” Her statement suggests a thoughtful negotiation between institutional expectations and the cultural-linguistic context of the classroom. By acknowledging local languages, she affirms students’ identities and fosters inclusivity, while still maintaining respect for formal guidelines. Language Ideologies Influence Implementation At Megara College, teachers demonstrate a thoughtful awareness of how differing beliefs about language shape the interpretation and application of the Medium of Instruction Policy. This theme reflects a typical but significant dynamic in multilingual educational settings, where language ideologies, ranging from the prioritization of English to the affirmation of mother tongue use, inform instructional choices and policy compliance. Boss Kenchen captures this tension succinctly, stating, “Some view English as the only language of academic success… others believe in the importance of mother tongue use.” His reflection reveals the ideological divide that often exists within educational communities. On one hand, English is seen as a gateway to global opportunities and academic prestige; on the other, the mother tongue is valued for its role in grounding understanding, preserving identity, and fostering inclusive learning. This recognition of competing beliefs allows teachers to approach policy implementation with greater sensitivity and adaptability. Rather than rigidly enforcing a one-size-fits-all language mandate, educators consider the cultural and cognitive needs of their students. They understand that language is not merely a tool for instruction but a reflection of deeper social values and educational philosophies. Lack of Clear Strategy or Awareness This reveals a significant gap in teacher preparedness. While the policy sets expectations for language use in classrooms, its success depends heavily on how well educators understand and apply it. Unfortunately, not all teachers feel equipped to meet these demands. This uncertainty manifests in candid admissions of Nobody who says, “I don’t know the answer to this question,” and “I don’t use specific strategy,” which point to a deeper issue of insufficient guidance and support. These statements are not merely expressions of momentary confusion, they reflect a systemic challenge. When teachers openly acknowledge their lack of strategy, it suggests that professional development around MOI has been uneven or inadequate. This lack of clarity can lead to inconsistent implementation across classrooms, where some educators may rely on instinct or ad hoc methods rather than structured approaches. As a result, students may experience varying levels of language support depending on their teacher’s confidence and familiarity with the policy. The implications of this theme are far-reaching. Teachers who lack clear strategies may struggle to scaffold language learning effectively, especially in multilingual settings. Their uncertainty can affect classroom dynamics, student engagement, and even assessment practices. Moreover, the absence of a shared framework for MOI implementation can hinder collaboration among educators, making it difficult to exchange best practices or troubleshoot common challenges. Language Beliefs and Ideologies in Policy Implementation Misalignment Between Policy and Practice Institutional language policies in many educational settings often prescribe English or Filipino as the official medium of instruction. These top-down mandates are designed to standardize communication and align with national or global linguistic priorities. However, in actual classroom practice, educators frequently adopt a more flexible, multilingual approach to support student understanding. This divergence between policy and practice reflects a deeper tension between institutional expectations and the lived realities of diverse learning environments. Boss Kenchen captures this disconnect by stating, “This reveals a gap between top-down mandates and the lived realities of multilingual classrooms.” His observation highlights how rigid policies can overlook the complex linguistic landscapes that students and teachers navigate daily. In multilingual communities, students may be more comfortable expressing themselves in their local languages, and teachers often respond by code-switching or using translanguaging techniques to ensure comprehension and engagement. Robotech emphasizes the importance of inclusive language practices, saying, “Allow them to use language that everybody can understand… without neglecting the use of English.” This statement reflects a balanced pedagogical approach, valuing English for its institutional and global relevance while recognizing the necessity of using accessible language to facilitate learning. It suggests that effective instruction does not require abandoning policy but rather adapting it to meet students’ needs. Batman adds another layer to the analysis by pointing out, “There is often a gap between policy and practice because language beliefs and student needs don’t always match institutional management.” His insight underscores the ideological and cultural dimensions of language use in education. Teachers and students bring their own beliefs and experiences into the classroom, which may conflict with institutional directives. This misalignment can lead to frustration, reduced engagement, and missed opportunities for deeper learning. Flexibility in Language Practices In multilingual educational settings, teachers often find themselves navigating between institutional language policies and the linguistic realities of their students. While English may be the prescribed medium of instruction, educators frequently incorporate local languages such as Cebuano and Filipino to ensure that learning is inclusive, effective, and responsive to students’ needs. Boss Kenchen highlights this adaptive approach, stating, “Faculty and students tend to adjust in ways that make learning more effective.” This reflects a shared understanding between educators and learners that rigid adherence to a single language can hinder comprehension. Instead, both parties engage in dynamic language practices that prioritize clarity and connection. Batman offers a concrete example of this strategy in action: “I integrate Filipino and Cebuano when needed… bridge the gap between institutional expectations and students’ linguistic realities.” His statement underscores the role of the teacher as a mediator, not just of content, but of language itself. By blending languages, Batman ensures that students are not alienated by unfamiliar terms and can engage more deeply with the material. The phrase “Flexibility and adaptability,” shared by Battered wife, encapsulates the ethos of this pedagogical approach. It suggests that effective teaching in multilingual contexts requires not just linguistic skill, but a mindset open to change and responsive to diversity. This adaptability is not a deviation from professionalism, it is a hallmark of culturally competent instruction. Uncertainty or Lack of Awareness In the complex landscape of multilingual education, not all educators feel confident about how institutional language policies align with their day-to-day classroom practices. While some teachers actively adapt and negotiate these policies, others express uncertainty or a lack of clarity about what is expected of them or how their practices fit within official guidelines. This uncertainty is captured succinctly in the direct statement by Nobody, “I don’t know.” Though brief, this response is deeply telling. It reflects a broader issue within educational institutions, namely, the insufficient communication or professional development surrounding language policy implementation. When educators are unsure about the policies they are meant to follow, it can lead to inconsistent practices, hesitation in decision-making, and a lack of confidence in their pedagogical choices. The ambiguity also suggests that language policy may be perceived as abstract or disconnected from the realities of the classroom. Without clear guidance or contextualized support, teachers may struggle to interpret how to apply these policies in ways that are both compliant and responsive to their students’ linguistic needs. This lack of awareness is not necessarily a reflection of teacher disengagement, but rather a signal that institutional structures may not be providing the clarity, training, or dialogue necessary for effective policy enactment. It underscores the need for more inclusive policy development processes, ones that involve teachers as active participants and acknowledge the diverse linguistic contexts in which they work. Institutional Policies vs. Everyday Practices In many educational institutions, language policies are crafted with the goal of promoting English as the primary medium of instruction. This emphasis is often tied to aspirations for global competitiveness, academic standardization, and alignment with international benchmarks. However, the realities of classroom life tell a different story, one shaped by the linguistic diversity of students and the practical needs of teaching and learning. Batman articulates this tension clearly: “Institutional policies usually push for English, but in practice… Filipino and Cebuano.” His statement reveals a common pattern in multilingual regions like the Philippines, where students are more fluent and comfortable in local languages. Teachers, recognizing this, often shift away from strict English-only instruction to incorporate Filipino and Cebuano, ensuring that students grasp the material and feel included in the learning process. BossKenchen echoes this observation, noting, “Institutional policies often promote English or Filipino… but in everyday practice… use a mix of languages.” This reflects a pragmatic approach among educators who prioritize comprehension and engagement over rigid policy adherence. The use of multiple languages becomes a pedagogical tool, one that bridges gaps in understanding and fosters a more inclusive classroom environment. The typical conflict arises when institutional mandates clash with these everyday practices. While policies may be designed with good intentions, they often fail to account for the linguistic realities of students and the adaptive strategies of teachers. This disconnect can lead to confusion, inconsistency, and even tension between administrators and educators. Personal Beliefs vs. Institutional Mandates In multilingual educational contexts, teachers often find themselves balancing institutional language mandates with their personal beliefs about effective pedagogy. While official policies may emphasize English as the medium of instruction, many educators prioritize student comprehension and inclusion, choosing to integrate local languages like Filipino and Cebuano to support learning. This tension is rooted in a shared understanding among teachers that language should serve as a bridge, not a barrier, to education. Boss Kenchen articulates this belief clearly: “Language should be a tool for inclusion, not a barrier.” His statement reflects a values-driven approach to teaching, where the goal is not just to meet institutional standards but to ensure that every student feels seen, heard, and understood. Batman reinforces this perspective with a practical response: “Student understanding comes first… integrate Filipino and Cebuano.” His words highlight a common strategy among educators, complying with policy while adapting instruction to meet students’ linguistic realities. This approach acknowledges that rigid adherence to English-only instruction can alienate learners, especially those who are more fluent in local languages. DISCUSSION Mechanism Used to Manage and Enforce Medium of Instruction Policy Multilingual Instruction Enhances Comprehension Faculty at Megara emphasize that switching between English, Filipino, and Cebuano enhances student comprehension, particularly in technical and theoretical subjects. This practice aligns with Bravo-Sotelo and Metila (2023), who found that teacher code-switching in tertiary classrooms serves key pedagogical functions such as clarifying abstract concepts, managing classroom discourse, and fostering rapport. Similarly, Bravo-Sotelo (2020) reported that Tagalog-English code-switching improved student engagement and understanding, especially when explaining complex ideas. The Megara faculty’s approach also reflects broader tensions between institutional language policies and classroom realities. Bravo-Sotelo et al. (2024) describe this as a “tug-of-war” between English-only mandates and the practical benefits of multilingual instruction. Yet, not all scholars fully endorse code-switching. Rengur et al. (2025) caution that excessive reliance on it may limit students’ opportunities to practice English, foster dependency on the first language, and impede fluency and communicative competence. Multilingual instruction through code-switching enhances comprehension and engagement by making complex concepts more accessible and responsive to students’ linguistic realities. However, it also underscores the need for balance: while effective in the short term, overuse may hinder long-term English development. A strategic approach is therefore necessary to support both immediate understanding and sustained language growth. Faculty Development Through Experience The experiential approach described by Megara College faculty, where instructional strategies evolve through trial, reflection, and student feedback, is echoed in the work of Gonzales (2023) who emphasizes that teachers often refine their methods through direct interaction with students , adapting based on observed learning outcomes rather than rigid adherence to policy or training modules. The result further supported by Santos and Castro (2021) who found that teachers developed new pedagogical strategies through hands-on experience with online platforms , often without formal training. However, Bautista (1991) argues that while experiential learning is valuable, structured professional development is essential to ensure consistency, equity, and linguistic competence across diverse classrooms . She suggests that without formal guidance, teachers may unintentionally reinforce linguistic hierarchies or fail to meet broader educational standards. It implies that experiential approach to faculty development at Megara College highlights the value of learning through direct classroom engagement, reflection, and student feedback. This method fosters adaptive teaching strategies tailored to real-time challenges. However, relying solely on experience may lead to inconsistencies and overlooked pedagogical gaps. To ensure equitable and linguistically competent instruction, experiential learning should be complemented by structured professional development that provides theoretical grounding and aligns with broader educational standards. Faculty Development Support The participants accounts illustrate how structured professional development, through workshops, seminars, and peer-sharing sessions, has equipped them with pedagogical tools like translanguaging, scaffolding, and contextualized instruction. This experience aligns with the findings of De Los Reyes (2019) , who said that translanguaging in multilingual classrooms emphasizes that teacher training plays a critical role in enabling educators to use students’ full linguistic repertoires to enhance learning . She argues that faculty development fosters reflective practice and empowers teachers to move beyond rigid language policies, making instruction more inclusive and effective. Similarly, Tiongson (2018) supports the idea that faculty development initiatives encourage critical pedagogy and inclusive language practices , especially when educators engage in cross-disciplinary dialogue and peer mentoring. However, Bautista (1991) offers a more cautious perspective and argues that while faculty development can promote inclusive strategies, it must be systematically aligned with institutional goals and national standards . She warns that without consistent implementation and policy support, programs may lead to fragmented practices and reinforce linguistic inequalities. This implies that structured professional development equips educators with inclusive teaching strategies that enhance multilingual instruction and promote reflective practice. These initiatives empower teachers to adapt their methods to diverse linguistic contexts, fostering more effective and student-centered learning. However, without consistent alignment with institutional goals and policy support, such programs risk uneven implementation and may inadvertently reinforce educational disparities. A balanced approach that integrates both practical training and systemic coherence is essential for sustainable impact. Student Language Preferences Matter Faculty at Megara consistently observe that students are more confident and expressive when allowed to use their native languages, Filipino, Cebuano, or a mix of dialects, during instruction. This result is aligned with the findings of Bernardo (2017) , who emphasizes that students’ comfort with familiar linguistic forms enhances classroom participation and comprehension . He argues that incorporating students’ linguistic backgrounds into instruction fosters a more inclusive and responsive learning environment. Similarly, Colorada and Eslit (2020) suggest that students who feel linguistically secure in their native dialects demonstrate stronger engagement and adaptability. However, Bautista (2022) cautions that while local language use promotes inclusion and confidence, it must be balanced with opportunities to develop English fluency . The finding implies that allowing students to use their native languages in the classroom fosters greater confidence, participation, and comprehension, especially in discussion-based and creative subjects. Institutional Mechanisms Participants narratives revealed a lack of formal mechanisms guiding the enforcement of MOI policies. This situation reflects broader challenges in Philippine higher education, where language policy often lacks operational clarity and institutional coherence. This finding coincides with the view Cabansag (2013) that effective Medium of Instruction (MoI) implementation requires structured institutional mechanisms because without administrative support, faculty are left to interpret policies independently, which can lead to inconsistent practices and reduced instructional effectiveness. In contrast, Pun and Jia (2025) offers a more critical lens and suggests that top-down enforcement of Medium of Instruction (MoI) policies may overlook the contextual realities of local classrooms . However, Phyak and Khanal (2025) , caution that relying solely on teacher discretion without institutional scaffolding risks perpetuating inequities and undermining policy goals . They emphasize that language policies must be both flexible and supported by institutional infrastructure to ensure equitable access to quality education across diverse linguistic communities. It implies that the absence of formal mechanisms for enforcing Medium of Instruction (MOI) policies highlights a broader issue of institutional ambiguity in language governance. While teacher autonomy allows for contextual responsiveness, lack of structured support can lead to inconsistent practices and diminished instructional effectiveness. Curriculum Constraints Faculty highlights how institutional structures, particularly fixed syllabi and limited instructional time, constrain their ability to adapt language use to students’ comprehension levels. This concern is echoed in the work of Pamittan (2019), who found that rigid curriculum frameworks often hinder the implementation of Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE), especially when teachers are pressured to meet standardized content requirements. Reyes and Harvey (2020), similarly argues that curriculum design in Philippine education often lacks the flexibility needed to accommodate diverse linguistic contexts. They advocate for a more responsive curriculum that allows teachers to integrate multilingual strategies without compromising content delivery. However, Niebres and Cabansag (2024) offer a contrasting perspective, suggesting that standardized syllabi and structured modules can provide consistency and ensure that learning objectives are uniformly met across institutions. The tension between policy-driven curriculum design and classroom realities is further explored by Espino et al. (2021), who critiques top-down educational reforms that fail to consider local classroom dynamics. They argue that while curriculum standards are necessary, they must be co-developed with educators to ensure they are both contextually relevant and pedagogically sound. The finding implies that curriculum constraints such as rigid syllabi and limited instructional time can hinder educators’ ability to adapt language use to students’ diverse comprehension levels. While standardized frameworks offer consistency and help ensure uniform learning outcomes, they may also restrict the integration of multilingual strategies that support inclusive and responsive teaching. Faculty Adjustment in Teaching/Language Practices with Challenges in Implementing the Medium of Instruction Policy Multilingual Flexibility in Instruction Participants narrative from Megara College reveal a dynamic and responsive use of English, Filipino, and Cebuano to enhance student comprehension and engagement. This multilingual approach reflects a pedagogical commitment to inclusivity and linguistic relevance. The participants’ balanced stance, encouraging English while permitting multilingual expression, corresponds with Bernardo’s (2017) assertion that integrating Philippine English and local dialects into instruction fosters deeper engagement, supports comprehension, and promotes equitable learning environments, particularly in ESL contexts. By validating students’ linguistic backgrounds, educators create spaces that are both culturally responsive and pedagogically sound. Moreover, the integration of Filipino and Cebuano alongside formal English use aligns with Martinez and Martin’s (2025) advocacy for context-sensitive multilingual education. Their work emphasizes the importance of teacher agency and cultural inclusivity, challenging rigid policy enforcement and affirming the role of educators in adapting instruction to classroom realities. This perspective reinforces the notion that multilingual instruction not only supports learning but also affirms student identity and fosters classroom responsiveness. In addition, the strategic use of the mother tongue as a scaffold for comprehension reflects cognitive theories of language acquisition, particularly Machimana’s (2020) interpretation of interdependence hypothesis. This theory posits that students’ first language can facilitate second language development through cognitive transfer. Supporting this view, Niebres and Cabansag (2024) demonstrate that native language integration significantly enhances academic performance, especially in reading and conceptual understanding, thereby reinforcing the effectiveness of multilingual pedagogies. However, Bautista (1991) argues that while multilingual instruction promotes inclusion, it must be balanced with deliberate English language development to ensure academic readiness and global competence. Over-reliance on local languages, she warns, may impede students’ performance in standardized assessments and limit their professional communication skills. Finally, the participants’ use of flexibility and translation underscores the adaptive nature of multilingual teaching. These strategies, though varied in complexity, reflect a commitment to accessibility and responsiveness. Both Martinez and Martin (2025) and Bernardo (2017) affirm that teacher adaptability is essential in linguistically diverse classrooms, where rigid language policies often fail to meet the nuanced needs of learners. Use of Code-Switching and Visual Aids Participants employ code-switching and visual aids to address linguistic barriers and support diverse learners. Participant’s layered approach, combining code-switching, scaffolding, and visual tools, reflects best practices in multilingual pedagogy. This aligns with Metila (2009), who found that code-switching serves multiple functions in Philippine classrooms , including clarifying content, managing classroom discourse, and fostering inclusivity. She emphasizes that strategic code-switching can bridge gaps between academic language and students’ everyday linguistic repertoires, thereby enhancing comprehension and participation. The use of diagrams and visual representation is supported by Estremera (2023), who highlights the role of visual aids in improving conceptual understanding. Visual tools help concretize abstract ideas and cater to varied learning styles, making them especially valuable in linguistically diverse settings. The utilization of code-switching and visual demonstrations in instruction echoes findings by Metila et al. (2016), who examined multilingual education is complex subject areas. Their research suggests that combining linguistic and visual scaffolds allows students to access content more effectively, especially when dealing with unfamiliar academic terminology. The culturally responsive use of Cebuano aligns with Bautista’s (2022) work on code-switching as a marker of identity and inclusion . Bautista argues that using students’ native languages in instruction not only aids comprehension but also affirms their cultural and linguistic identities. This practice fosters a sense of belonging and encourages active participation, particularly among students who may feel marginalized by English-only policies. However, few scholars caution against unstructured or excessive use of code-switching. Bautista (1991) warns that over-reliance on local languages may hinder English language development , which is crucial for academic and professional success. She advocates for a balanced approach that supports multilingualism while ensuring students gain proficiency in English. Balancing Policy with Student Needs The participant’s efforts to uphold formal language policies while accommodating students’ linguistic diversity reflect a broader pedagogical tension between top-down mandates and classroom realities. This approach of the participant aligns with Martin (2020), who emphasizes the importance of teacher agency in navigating multilingual contexts . Martin argues that effective language instruction must be responsive to students’ linguistic backgrounds, and that educators should be empowered to adapt their methods accordingly to foster inclusivity and comprehension. The scaffolding used by the participant allows students to use their preferred language before transitioning to English, illustrates a gradual and supportive model of language development. This method resonates with Cummins’ (2000) who mentioned that proficiency in the first language can facilitate second language acquisition. Niebres and Cabansag (2024) supports this view, noting that native language integration enhances academic performance , particularly in reading and conceptual understanding. Such scaffolding not only builds confidence but also reinforces cognitive connections, making formal instruction more accessible. The other participant’s reflection on “bridging policies” by acknowledging local languages while respecting institutional guidelines highlights the importance of cultural responsiveness in education is consistent with the findings of Tupas and Lorente (2014), who argue that language policies must be interpreted and enacted within the sociocultural realities of the classroom . They emphasize that educators play a critical role in mediating policy and practice, and that acknowledging students’ linguistic identities contributes to more equitable and effective learning environments. In contrast, Paudel (2023) highlights that strict policy adherence without contextual adaptation often leads to disengagement and reduced learning outcomes , especially in linguistically diverse classrooms. This findings imply that effective language instruction requires balancing formal policy with students’ linguistic realities. Scaffolding through native language use enhances comprehension and confidence, supporting cognitive development. Language Ideologies Influence Implementation The participants exhibit an understanding of how beliefs about language shape instructional decisions. Some view English as the only language of academic success while others believe in the importance of mother tongue use. This ideological divide is well-documented by Velasco (2019), who explores how English is often positioned as a symbol of academic prestige and global mobility in Philippine education and argues that such ideologies can marginalize local languages and reinforce elitist notions of linguistic capital, especially in urban and private school contexts. Conversely, Tupas and Lorente (2014) advocate for the affirmation of mother tongue use, emphasizing its role in fostering inclusive and meaningful learning. They support the idea that language is not merely a medium of instruction but a carrier of identity, culture, and cognitive development. This ideological interplay informs how teachers navigate policy implementation. Rather than rigidly enforcing English-only mandates, the participants demonstrate adaptability, considering both institutional expectations and student needs. This approach aligns with Phyak (2024), who critiques monolingual language planning and calls for more context-sensitive policies that empower teachers to make pedagogical decisions rooted in local realities. The findings imply that teachers’ beliefs about language significantly influence their instructional choices, revealing a tension between English dominance and mother tongue advocacy. Rather than strictly adhering to English-only policies, educators show flexibility by balancing institutional demands with students’ linguistic and cultural needs. Lack of Clear Strategy or Awareness Participants’ admission of uncertainty reflect more than individual hesitation; they point to broader institutional shortcomings. Metila et al. (2016) affirm that effective Medium of Instruction (MOI) implementation requires sustained teacher training and contextualized support , especially in linguistically diverse settings. This inconsistency is further echoed by Salomone (2023), who argue that language policy in the Philippines is often top-down and poorly communicated , leaving educators to interpret and implement it based on personal judgment rather than shared frameworks. Such ambiguity undermine collaboration among teachers and hinder the development of best practices. In contrast, Bautista (1991) emphasizes the importance of structured language planning and teacher preparedness to ensure that English proficiency is not compromised. She warns that without clear strategies, teachers may default to ad hoc methods that fail to support students’ long-term academic and linguistic development. While some flexibility in implementation can allow for responsiveness to student needs, as noted by Phyak (2024), this flexibility should be grounded in pedagogical training and institutional guidance . Otherwise, it risks becoming a source of confusion rather than empowerment. Language Beliefs and Ideologies in Policy Implementation Misalignment Between Policy and Practice Institutional language policies in the Philippines often prescribe English or Filipino as the official medium of instruction, aiming to standardize communication and align with national and global priorities. However, classroom realities show a different picture: educators frequently adopt flexible, multilingual approaches such as code-switching and translanguaging to support student comprehension and engagement. Velasco (2025) supports this finding by arguing that English is often positioned as a symbol of academic prestige and global mobility, especially in urban and private school contexts. This ideology can marginalize local languages and reinforce elitist notions of linguistic capital. In contrast, Manan and David (2014) advocate for the affirmation of mother tongue use, emphasizing its role in fostering inclusive and meaningful learning. Ma (2013) further critiques monolingual language planning, calling for context-sensitive policies that empower teachers to make pedagogical decisions rooted in local realities. Similarly, Symaco (2017) notes that the global push for English proficiency in Philippine education often overlooks the sociolinguistic diversity of classrooms, reinforcing the need for more adaptable and inclusive language policies. Flexibility in Language Practices In multilingual educational settings, educators often navigate a complex interplay between institutional language policies, typically favoring English, and the linguistic diversity of their students. The participants in this study reflect a shared understanding that rigid adherence to a single language can hinder comprehension. These findings align with Tupas and Martin (2017), who advocate for Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) as a means to address inequities and promote inclusive learning. They argue that local languages are essential for meaningful instruction and cognitive development, especially in early education. Similarly, Phyak (2024) critiques monolingual language planning and calls for context-sensitive policies that empower teachers to make pedagogical decisions rooted in local realities. Contrastingly, Velasco (2019) cautions that English continues to be positioned as a symbol of academic prestige and global mobility, particularly in urban and private school contexts. This ideology can marginalize local languages and reinforce elitist notions of linguistic capital. Moreover, Tupas and Lorente (2014) support this flexible approach, emphasizing that language is not merely a medium of instruction but a carrier of identity and culture. Their work suggests that effective teaching in multilingual contexts must embrace linguistic diversity rather than suppress it. Uncertainty or Lack of Awareness In multilingual educational contexts, many educators express uncertainty about how institutional language policies align with their everyday teaching practices. This lack of clarity reflects a broader issue of insufficient communication and professional development within educational institutions. When teachers are unsure of policy expectations, it can result in inconsistent instructional practices, hesitation in decision-making, and diminished confidence in their pedagogical choices. This finding is supported by Alieto and Buslon (2020), who argue that the implementation of Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) in the Philippines often lacks adequate teacher training and institutional support, leading to confusion and resistance among educators. Without proper orientation and contextualized guidance, teachers may struggle to interpret and apply language policies effectively. Similarly, Cabansag (2021) notes that while language policies aim to promote inclusivity, their top-down nature often alienates teachers who are not involved in the policy-making process, resulting in a disconnect between policy and practice. Adversely, Tupas and Lorente (2014) advocate for a more participatory approach to language policy development, emphasizing the importance of involving teachers in shaping policies that reflect the linguistic realities of their classrooms. Velasco (2019) critiques the dominance of English in Philippine education, arguing that such ideologies can obscure the value of local languages and contribute to policy confusion, especially in multilingual settings. Institutional Policies vs. Everyday Practices In many Philippine educational institutions, language policies emphasize English as the primary medium of instruction, driven by goals of global competitiveness and academic standardization. However, as participants illustrate, the practical realities of teaching in linguistically diverse classrooms often necessitate the use of local languages such as Filipino and Cebuano. These educators adopt a pragmatic approach, using multiple languages to ensure student comprehension, engagement, and inclusion. This divergence between policy and practice is well-documented in the literature. Tupas and Lorente (2014) argue that while English is promoted as a tool for global mobility, such policies often marginalize local languages and overlook the sociolinguistic contexts of learners. Similarly, Phyak (2024) critiques monolingual language planning and advocates for empowering teachers to make pedagogical decisions based on local realities, aligning with the adaptive strategies described by the participants. Velasco (2019) provides a contrasting perspective by highlighting how English continues to be perceived as a marker of academic prestige, particularly in urban and private school settings. This perception reinforces institutional pressures that may discourage the use of local languages, despite their pedagogical value. Furthermore, Martin (2018) underscores the importance of translanguaging as a legitimate pedagogical practice in multilingual classrooms. He argues that allowing students to draw on their full linguistic repertoires can enhance learning outcomes and affirm cultural identity. Personal Beliefs vs. Institutional Mandates In multilingual educational settings, educators frequently navigate a delicate balance between institutional mandates that promote English as the primary medium of instruction and their personal beliefs about effective teaching. As illustrated, many teachers view language as a means to foster understanding and connection rather than enforce rigid standards. Kiramba (2018) argue that while English is often positioned as a symbol of academic prestige and global mobility, such ideologies can marginalize local languages and hinder inclusive learning. Similarly, Dougherty (2021) advocates for translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy that allows students to draw on their full linguistic repertoires, enhancing both comprehension and identity affirmation. Smith (2025) critiques monolingual language planning and calls for context-sensitive policies that empower teachers to make decisions based on local realities. This aligns with the adaptive strategies described by the participants, who comply with policy while ensuring that instruction remains accessible and meaningful. On the other hand, Canilao (2020) highlights the institutional pressures that reinforce English as the dominant language in Philippine education, particularly in urban and private school contexts. This perspective underscores the systemic challenges teachers face when attempting to reconcile policy with practice. Wang (2008) adds another layer to the discussion by pointing out that many educators lack clarity on how to implement language policies effectively, which can lead to inconsistent practices and diminished confidence. CONCLUSION Drawing from Spolsky’s Language Policy Framework (2004) the findings reveal a complex but coherent picture of how educators in multilingual Philippine classrooms navigate institutional mandates. While official policies often promote English as the primary medium of instruction to align with global standards, teachers’ actual classroom practices frequently involve the integration of local languages such as Filipino and Cebuano to ensure student comprehension and inclusion. These language practices are deeply informed by teachers’ beliefs that language should serve as a bridge to learning rather than a barrier, an ideology that prioritizes accessibility, cultural identity, and pedagogical effectiveness. The tension between institutional expectations and classroom realities underscores a disconnect in policy implementation, where top-down directives may lack contextual sensitivity and fail to engage teachers as active agents. Ultimately, the study illustrates that effective language policy must not only regulate language use but also reflect the lived experiences and values of educators, affirming Spolsky’s assertion that sustainable language policy emerges from the alignment of practice, belief, and management. References Aizawa, I., Rose, H., McKinley, J., & Thompson, G. (2024). A comparison of content learning outcomes between Japanese and English medium instruction. Language and Education , 38 (6), 911-930. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2023.2238688 Alieto, E. O., & Buslon, J. B. (2020). Language policy awareness and attitudes toward Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education among pre-service teachers in the Philippines. Asian EFL Journal , 27(2), 144–164. https://www.elejournals.com/asian-efl-journal/ Annamalah, S. (2024). The value of case study research in practice: A methodological review with practical insights from organisational studies. Journal of Applied Economic Sciences (JAES) , 19 (4 (86)), 485-498. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=1295895 Bautista, A. (2022). Negotiating Ideology, Self, and Classroom Instruction: A Framework of Critical Text Selection for High School English Language Arts Curricula. Bautista, M. L. S. (1991). Code-switching studies in the Philippines. International Journal of the Sociology of Language , 1991 (88). 10.1515/ijsl.1991.88.19 Bautista, M.L. (2000). Code-switching studies in the Philippines . In Cruz, I.R. (Ed.), Inter/Sections: Isagani R. Cruz and Friends . Manila: Anvil Publishing. Bernardo, A. S. (2017). Philippine English in the ESL classroom: A much closer look. Philippine ESL Journal , 19 (2), 117-144. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology , 3 (2), 77-101. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Bravo-Sotelo, K. P. (2020). Exploring the Tagalog-English Code-Switching Types Used for Mathematics Classroom Instruction. IAFOR Journal of Education , 8 (1), 47-64. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1245827 Bravo-Sotelo, K. P., & Metila, R. A. (2023). Determining the pedagogical value of code-switching: functions of teacher code-switching in tertiary level mathematics classrooms. International Journal of Multilingualism , 20 (3), 1088-1105. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2021.2002332 Bravo-Sotelo, K. P., McLellan, J., & Haji-Othman, N. A. (2024). The ideological tug-of-war of language policies in the Philippines: perspectives and proposal. Asian Englishes , 26 (2), 564-578. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2023.2257946 Cabansag, J. N. (2013). Effectiveness of middle level managers of state universities and colleges in Cagayan Valley, Philippines. Researchers World: Journal of Arts, Science & Commerce , 4 (1). https://www.proquest.com/openview/23de5505ffa0d25d8334fac2393d7866/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=556342 Cabansag, J. N. (2021). Teachers’ perspectives on language policy implementation in multilingual classrooms. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development , 8(6), 45–50. https://www.multidisciplinaryjournal.com/ Canilao, M. L. E. N. (2020). Foregrounding Philippine Englishes in fostering linguistic equality. Asian Englishes , 22 (2), 195-215. Colorada, S. L., & Eslit, E. R. (2020). Linguistic Structure and Communication Skills: Basis For Development Program. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Edgar-Eslit/publication/362569497_Linguistic_Structure_and_Communication_Skills_Basis_For_Development_Program/links/62f21ce888b83e7320bd9a91/Linguistic-Structure-and-Communication-Skills-Basis-For-Development-Program.pdf Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire (Vol. 23). Multilingual matters. De Los Reyes, R. A. (2019). Translanguaging in multilingual third grade ESL classrooms in Mindanao, Philippines. International Journal of Multilingualism , 16 (3), 302-316. Dearden, J., & Beaumont, B. (2024). Lecturers' professional development for English-medium instruction in higher education. In The Routledge handbook of English-medium instruction in higher education (pp. 49-62). Routledge. Dougherty, J. (2021). Translanguaging in action: Pedagogy that elevates. ORTESOL Journal , 38 , 19-32. Espino, J. D., Gonzales, D. H. F., & Martin, I. P. (2021). Multilingual English Language Teaching in the Philippines. International Journal of TESOL Studies , 3 (3). Estremera, M. L. (2023). Information communication and technology (ICT) literacy index of ESL teachers: expectation vs. reality of department of education (DepEd) computerization programme in pedagogy. Asia Pacific Journal of Educators and Education , 38 (1), 19-31. Evald, M. R., & Freytag, P. V. (2024). Cases Studies: A Matter of Paradigmatic Stance. In Collaborative Research Design: Working with Business for Meaningful Results (pp. 253-276). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. Gonzales, C. R. (2023). Culturally Responsive Practices to Improve Instruction for Secondary Emergent Bilingual Students: A Design Development Study. https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/items/1a5627e5-cdb8-495d-b273-fa1f5b105963 Gonzales, W. D. W. (2024). Philippine englishes in the sino‐philippine lannang context. World Englishes , 43 (4), 588-606. Heugh, K. (2023). Language policy, planning, and mobilisation in post-colonial civil societies. In The Routledge handbook of language policy and planning (pp. 113-131). Routledge. Ichou, A., & Fathi, S. (2022). Promoting quality, equality and inclusion through rethinking mediums of instruction in Moroccan public schools. International Journal of Language and Literary Studies , 4 (2), 296-320. Kamaşak, R., Sahan, K., & Rose, H. (2021). Academic language-related challenges at an English-medium university. Journal of English for Academic Purposes , 49 , 100945. Kiramba, L. K. (2018). Language ideologies and epistemic exclusion. Language and education , 32 (4), 291-312. Ma, Q. (2013). Matching vocabulary learning process with learning outcome in L2 academic writing: An exploratory case study. Linguistics and Education , 24 (2), 237-246. Machimana, P. N. N. (2020). Language-Learning Strategies of English Second-Language Learners Participating in Peer Tutoring (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pretoria (South Africa)). Manan, S. A., & David, M. K. (2014). Mapping ecology of literacies in educational setting: The case of local mother tongues vis-à-vis Urdu and English languages in Pakistan. Language and Education , 28 (3), 203-222. Martin, I. P. (2018). Translanguaging in multilingual Philippine classrooms: Pedagogical possibilities. Asia Pacific Journal of Education , 38(3), 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2018.1500350 Martin, I. P. (2020). Periphery English language teaching: Myths about English in the Philippines. In The Routledge handbook of world Englishes (pp. 281-297). Routledge. Martinez, J. C., & Martin, I. P. (Eds.). (2025). The Routledge Handbook of English Language Education in the Philippines . Taylor & Francis. Martínez, R. (2016). English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) in Brazilian higher education: challenges and opportunities. English in Brazil: Views, policies and programs , 191-228. McRae, J. (2022). Literature with a small 'l' : Developing thinking skills in language teaching and learning . Wayzgoose Press. Metila, R. A. (2009). Decoding the switch: The functions of codeswitching in the classroom. Education quarterly , 67 (1). Metila, R. A., Pradilla, L. A. S., & Williams, A. B. (2016). The challenge of implementing mother tongue education in linguistically diverse contexts: The case of the Philippines. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher , 25 (5), 781-789. Niebres, B. D., & Cabansag, J. N. (2024). Language Learning Strategies, Styles and Academic Achievement in English of Elementary Learners: Basis for Reading Program Intervention. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature & Translation , 7 (10). Nithideechaiwarachok, B., Maneekanon, O., & Bubphada, T. (2022). Exploring English language proficiency, English language problems, and English needs among first year undergraduate students. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research , 21 (12), 273-290. Osei-Boateng, S. (2022). Teachers’ perceptions about the medium of instruction in learning English as a second or foreign language in Ghanaian lower basic schools (Master's thesis, S. Osei-Boateng). Pamittan, F. A. (2019). The impact of mother tongue on the performance of ESL students in listening and speaking skills embracing MTB-MLE curriculum . The Asian ESP Journal, 15(1.2), 320–343. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=q5FUTFgAAAAJ&hl=en Parba, J. (2025). Pedagogical Perspective of Philippine. Equity, Social Justice, and English Medium Instruction: Case Studies from Asia , 329. Paudel, R. (2023). Multilingualism in Nepal: Challenges and Opportunities. Journal of Tilottama , 1 (1), 100-113. Phyak, P. (2013). Language ideologies and education in multilingual contexts: A critical ethnography from Nepal. Linguistics and Education , 24(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2012.11.002 Phyak, P. (2024). English-medium instruction in higher education in Nepal. In The Routledge Handbook of English-Medium Instruction in Higher Education (pp. 394-409). Routledge. Phyak, P. B. (2013). Beyond the façade of language planning for Nepalese primary education: monolingual hangover, elitism and displacement of local languages?. In Language Planning in Primary Schools in Asia (pp. 161-183). Routledge. Phyak, P., & Khanal, P. (2025). Modeling of Public Schools: Neoliberal Ideologies, School Gentrification, and the Erasure of Linguistic Diversity in Nepal. Comparative Education Review , 69 (1), 18-38. Pun, J., & Jia, W. (2025). English-medium instruction in higher education in Hong Kong: Policy, research and practice in STEM classrooms . Bloomsbury Publishing. Rengur, Z. A., Putri, P. A., Fatima, F., Mansur, N., Zulfikri, Z., Kuliahana, A., & Fatimawali, F. (2025). Code-Switching in EFL Classrooms: A Tool for Comprehension or a Hindrance in Fluency. Datokarama English Education Journal , 6 (1), 68-78. Reyes, W. S., & Harvey, R. M. (2018). Faculty and Student Teachers\" Voices\" in Developing a Multicultural Teacher Education Curriculum Using a Collaborative Participatory Approach. The Normal Lights , 12 (1). Richards, J. C., & Pun, J. (2023). A typology of English-medium instruction. Relc Journal , 54 (1), 216-240. Rose, H., & McKinley, J. (2018). Japan’s English-medium instruction initiatives and the globalization of higher education. Higher Education , 75 (1), 111-129. Salomone, R. (2023). In pursuit of sustainable educational development: The Philippines and the English dilemma. In Language and Sustainable Development (pp. 131-151). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Shepard, C., & Rose, H. (2023). English medium higher education in Hong Kong: Linguistic challenges of local and non-local students. Language and education , 37 (6), 788-805. Smith, O. (2025). Cultural Contexts In English Language Teaching: Balancing Global Standards With Local Relevance. Symaco, L. P. (2017). Education, language policy and language use in the Philippines. Language Problems and Language Planning , 41 (1), 87-102. Tiongson, M. T. (2018). Interdisciplinary teacher collaboration for English for Specific Purposes in the Philippines. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL , 13 . Tupas, R., & Lorente, B. P. (2014). A ‘new’ politics of language in the Philippines: Bilingual education and the new challenge of globalization. Language and Education , 28(2), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2013.800550 Tupas, R., & Martin, I. P. (2017). Bilingual and Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education in the Philippines. In Encyclopedia of Language and Education . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02258-1_18 Uys, M., Van Der Walt, J., Van Den Berg, R., & Botha, S. (2007). English medium of instruction: A situation analysis. South African Journal of Education , 27 (1), 69-82. Velasco, P. (2019). English and the politics of language in Philippine education. Asian Englishes , 21(2), 180–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2018.1536810 Velasco, Y. P. (2025). The interplay between language ideologies and mother tongue-based multilingual education (MTBMLE) policy implementation in the Philippines. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher , 34 (2), 765-775. Wang, H. (2008). Language policy implementation: A look at teachers’ perceptions. Asian EFL Journal , 30 (1), 1-38. Widiastuti, I. (2025). Assessing the Impact of Education Policies in Indonesia: Challenges, Achievement, and Future Direction. AL-ISHLAH: Jurnal Pendidikan , 17 (2), 1955-1964. Zeng, J., & Li, X. (2023). Ideologies underlying language policy and planning in the Philippines. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications , 10 (1), 1-8. Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {\"props\":{\"pageProps\":{\"initialData\":{\"identity\":\"rs-8492717\",\"acceptedTermsAndConditions\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"archivedVersions\":[],\"articleType\":\"Case Report\",\"associatedPublications\":[],\"authors\":[{\"id\":567951518,\"identity\":\"045497ec-bac0-4de9-be74-2db0bcbfa143\",\"order_by\":0,\"name\":\"Ariel E. San Jose\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3117-7728\",\"institution\":\"Southern Philippines Agribusiness and Marine and Aquatic School of Technology\",\"correspondingAuthor\":true,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Ariel\",\"middleName\":\"E. San\",\"lastName\":\"Jose\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":567951519,\"identity\":\"4ef21ab0-0073-4733-a512-c542daa3c272\",\"order_by\":1,\"name\":\"Alvin O. Cayogyog\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8448-0851\",\"institution\":\"Agusan del Sur State College of Agriculture and Technology\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Alvin\",\"middleName\":\"O.\",\"lastName\":\"Cayogyog\",\"suffix\":\"\"}],\"badges\":[],\"createdAt\":\"2026-01-01 01:42:05\",\"currentVersionCode\":1,\"declarations\":{\"humanSubjects\":true,\"vertebrateSubjects\":false,\"conflictsOfInterestStatement\":false,\"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines\":true,\"humanSubjectConsent\":true,\"humanSubjectClinicalTrial\":false,\"humanSubjectCaseReport\":true,\"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines\":false},\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8492717/v1\",\"doiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8492717/v1\",\"draftVersion\":[],\"editorialEvents\":[],\"editorialNote\":\"\",\"failedWorkflow\":false,\"files\":[{\"id\":99693746,\"identity\":\"d167e58b-dff1-4d84-912a-60c79b3ee9d0\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-07 10:48:11\",\"extension\":\"doc\",\"order_by\":0,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":312320,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"MediumofInstructionCase1ResearchSquare.doc\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8492717/v1/22b7a64e75a085ce97a0922d.doc\"},{\"id\":99693745,\"identity\":\"0e0cf024-8614-486f-b82d-079546be5327\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-07 10:48:11\",\"extension\":\"json\",\"order_by\":1,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":342,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"rs8492717.json\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8492717/v1/e3bf3e9864d4b182d09e3bd0.json\"},{\"id\":99693750,\"identity\":\"221b18d0-7fe6-4909-bdb8-3e006fdc5e03\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-07 10:48:16\",\"extension\":\"xml\",\"order_by\":2,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":149468,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"rs84927170enriched.xml\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8492717/v1/326196559a80d1200292dbe7.xml\"},{\"id\":99693743,\"identity\":\"af335740-b7ee-4cfa-aa63-fcbcaaacfcb3\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-07 10:48:11\",\"extension\":\"jpeg\",\"order_by\":3,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":14173,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"floatimage1.jpeg\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8492717/v1/d78dcadab9e937f2d7570e18.jpeg\"},{\"id\":99693747,\"identity\":\"4b5e810a-90e0-4dce-8ba5-4d9734a51952\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-07 10:48:12\",\"extension\":\"jpeg\",\"order_by\":4,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":3640,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"floatimage2.jpeg\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8492717/v1/2cecc23b556cf971b5f5bc9e.jpeg\"},{\"id\":99797289,\"identity\":\"40688de0-09c7-4a1e-941d-596dcd12bd66\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-08 13:45:32\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":5,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":23846,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"Onlinefloatimage1.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8492717/v1/bc16f7f5559c8a8eb91013d4.png\"},{\"id\":99693741,\"identity\":\"9e26f8e0-22fc-4082-8a0c-373c2f97eb7a\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-07 10:48:11\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":6,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":5657,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"Onlinefloatimage2.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8492717/v1/88b770c934ab5a0bf6c73944.png\"},{\"id\":99693748,\"identity\":\"8940fa29-fbdc-4d61-b286-cc9414cd1b9f\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-07 10:48:14\",\"extension\":\"xml\",\"order_by\":7,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":148009,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"rs84927170structuring.xml\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8492717/v1/29c13800d72cad7c6fe99109.xml\"},{\"id\":99795233,\"identity\":\"0e71bdf2-4d3e-45ac-965a-28deb5e1d55f\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-08 13:37:30\",\"extension\":\"html\",\"order_by\":8,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"acdc-reference\",\"size\":156808,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"earlyproof.html\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8492717/v1/5280abc9829f94689548c840.html\"},{\"id\":99805291,\"identity\":\"1a9694c1-5945-4a92-9537-b9a64ce7af83\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2026-01-08 14:16:18\",\"extension\":\"pdf\",\"order_by\":0,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"manuscript-pdf\",\"size\":2566608,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"manuscript.pdf\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8492717/v1/b947faca-0af6-4eb9-a569-e608d4bfa210.pdf\"}],\"financialInterests\":\"The authors declare no competing interests.\",\"formattedTitle\":\"\\u003ch3\\u003eMedium of Instruction in a State-Owned Education Institution: Policy–Practice Alignment, Ideologies, and Management\\u003c/h3\\u003e\",\"fulltext\":[{\"header\":\"INTRODUCTION\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThe problem of the Medium of Instruction (MoI) has long been debated in education, particularly in multilingual societies where language policies intersect with pedagogy, identity, and equity. The MoI serves not only as a vehicle for transmitting knowledge but also as a tool that shapes comprehension, critical thinking, and academic success (Ichou \\u0026amp; Fathi, 2022; Osei-Boateng, 2022). However, when there is a mismatch between the language of instruction and the linguistic competence of learners, education becomes less effective and often exclusionary (McRae, 2022; Mohanty, 2019). Scholars argue that poorly managed MoI policies can exacerbate inequality, limit classroom participation, and hinder deeper learning outcomes (Heugh, 2015).\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eGlobally, the rise of English as a Medium of Instruction (EMoI) in higher education has accelerated, driven by internationalization, academic mobility, and the perceived economic value of English (Dearden \\u0026amp; Beaumont, 2024; Richard \\u0026amp; Pun, 2023). Yet, this global expansion has been accompanied by persistent pedagogical and linguistic challenges. In particular, students and instructors in non-Anglophone contexts often lack sufficient English proficiency, creating barriers to content mastery and classroom engagement (Li \\u0026amp; Pei, 2024). The linguistic heterogeneity of EMoI classrooms further complicates teaching and learning, as English is not systematically supported through scaffolding or supplementary resources (Aizawa et al., 2024). Without such support, learners frequently struggle to follow lectures, decode academic texts, and express themselves in discipline-specific discourse (Nithideechaiwarachok et al., 2022).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eEvidence from different countries illustrates these challenges. In Japan, university students often experience confusion and reduced participation due to fast-paced lectures and insufficient academic vocabulary (Rose \\u0026amp; McKinley, 2018). In Brazil and the Netherlands, learners have difficulty mastering discipline-specific terminology and articulating complex arguments in English (Mart\\u0026iacute;nez, 2016). In Turkey, EMoI is associated with poor classroom interaction, reduced comprehension, and diminished academic performance (Kamaşak et al., 2021). Similarly, in Indonesia, while teachers and policymakers refined curricula in response to global EMoI trends, the gap between educator and student perspectives led to mixed results (Widiastuti, 2025). These international experiences suggest that EMoI, when implemented without robust pedagogical strategies and linguistic scaffolding, risks deepening inequalities in educational outcomes (Shepard \\u0026amp; Rose, 2023).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eIn the Philippines, English as MoI has a strong historical and constitutional foundation. Section 7, Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution mandates English as an official medium of instruction, while Section 6 reaffirms Filipino as the national language, reflecting the country\\u0026rsquo;s effort to balance national identity and global participation (Uys et al., 2007). This bilingual policy has enabled Filipinos to engage internationally while preserving cultural identity (Zeng \\u0026amp; Li, 2023). However, the distribution of EMoI benefits is highly uneven. Studies reveal that urban schools, often better funded, have access to trained English teachers, richer instructional materials, and greater exposure to English in daily life, while rural and remote areas face resource shortages, larger class sizes, and teachers who themselves may lack confidence in English instruction (Parba, 2025).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThis rural-urban divide has significant consequences. For example, Tupas and Martin (2017) found that urban students, particularly those in private or well-resourced public schools, were more likely to participate actively in EMoI classrooms. Conversely, rural students frequently reverted to local languages to cope with limited comprehension. Gonzales (2024) further documented that students in rural Mindanao faced persistent EMoI difficulties, leading to disengagement and superficial learning, despite teachers\\u0026rsquo; efforts to simplify content or code-switch. These findings align with global evidence suggesting that EMoI policies, without adequate support structures, exacerbate educational inequities (Heugh, 2023).\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eWithin Philippine higher education, the problem of MoI management is particularly pressing. While Executive Order No. 210 encourages English as the primary medium in tertiary institutions, implementation is often inconsistent across regions and institutions. Many faculty members lack training in bilingual or multilingual pedagogy, and instructional resources to support EMoI are limited. These challenges underscore the need for localized MoI strategies that account for regional disparities, as well as sustained faculty development programs that strengthen language pedagogy and content delivery. Moreover, longitudinal research is needed to assess how MoI policies affect learning outcomes, equity, and student success over time.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eResearch Questions\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThis study aimed to explore management of Medium of Instruction (MoI) of a state-owned tertiary educational institution. Specifically, it sought answers to the following questions: 1) What mechanisms does the state-owned educational institution use to manage and enforce the Medium of Instruction Policy?; 2) How do faculty adjust their teaching/language practices with challenges in implementing the Medium of Instruction policy?; and 3) What insights can be shared by teachers about the alignment or misalignment between language management, actual language practices, and prevailing language beliefs?\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eTheoretical Lens\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThis study is anchored on the Spolsky\\u0026rsquo;s Language Policy Framework (2004). The framework proposes that language policy consists of three interrelated components: language practices, language beliefs or ideologies, and language management. Language practices refer to the habitual ways people use language in daily life, including multilingual behavior and code-switching. Language beliefs or ideologies encompass the shared attitudes and assumptions about language, such as notions of correctness or prestige. Language management involves deliberate efforts to influence language use, typically through official policies or institutional planning.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"METHOD\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eResearch Design\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThis study used a qualitative single case study. Case study is a qualitative research strategy that investigates phenomena within their real-life context, emphasizing depth rather than breadth (Annamalah, 2024). It is regarded as an empirical inquiry that explores contemporary issues in detail, particularly when the boundaries between the phenomenon and its context are not clearly evident (Evald \\u0026amp; Freytag, 2024). This approach is appropriate for research on the \\u003cstrong\\u003emedium of instruction\\u003c/strong\\u003e because it enables an in-depth examination of how language policies and practices unfold within a specific institutional setting. By focusing on one bounded case, the study captures the complexity of experiences, attitudes, and challenges that might be overlooked in broader surveys, thereby providing rich contextual insights into how the medium of instruction shapes teaching, learning, and institutional culture.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eResearch Participants\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThis study had a total participants of 10 participants; five faculty members from different academic institute and five students of different courses. Creswell (2023) suggest that qualitative case studies often include 4-5 participants for a single case. Moreover, each participant was given pseudonym for to hide their identity and confidentiality. \\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eLocale of the Study\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eThe study was conducted in a state-owned college given the pseudonym Megara College. It nestles\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003ealong the coast of a Gulf. \\u003cstrong\\u003eMegara College\\u003c/strong\\u003e is an academic institution of higher learning, shaping the future of rural and maritime communities. Originally founded as a barangay high school, it has evolved into a state college with a mandate rooted in agricultural innovation, marine science, and inclusive education. Its campuses and its satellite sites, serve as hubs for transformative instruction, research, and extension work. With programs spanning agri-business, fisheries, teacher development, and environmental sciences, Megara College cultivates not only knowledge but community empowerment. Like its mythic namesake, Megara College endures quietly strategic, deeply committed, and ever poised for renewal.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eData Gathering Procedure\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe data gathering procedure of this study was guided by Braun and Clarke\\u0026rsquo;s (2006) framework of thematic analysis, applied systematically to explore the management of the Medium of Instruction (MoI) in a state-owned tertiary educational institution. Following their six-phase process, the study began with \\u003cstrong\\u003efamiliarization\\u003c/strong\\u003e through the collection and repeated reading of interview transcripts, institutional documents, and policy materials to gain a deep understanding of the data. Next, \\u003cstrong\\u003einitial codes\\u003c/strong\\u003e were generated to capture meaningful features related to institutional mechanisms, faculty adjustments, and teacher insights on MoI implementation. These codes were then organized into \\u003cstrong\\u003ethemes\\u003c/strong\\u003e that reflected broader patterns, such as policy enforcement strategies, pedagogical adaptations, and the alignment or misalignment between language management, classroom practices, and prevailing beliefs. The themes were subsequently \\u003cstrong\\u003ereviewed and refined\\u003c/strong\\u003e to ensure coherence and distinctiveness, followed by \\u003cstrong\\u003edefining and naming\\u003c/strong\\u003e each theme to clearly articulate its scope and relevance to the research questions. Finally, the themes were \\u003cstrong\\u003esynthesized and reported\\u003c/strong\\u003e in a narrative form that highlights how institutional policies, faculty responses, and teacher perspectives intersect in the management of MoI.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eEthical Consideration\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eIn conducting this study, strict adherence to ethical standards was observed to protect the rights and welfare of students, teachers, and deans. The paper was submitted for Ethics Review. \\u003cstrong\\u003eConfidentiality\\u003c/strong\\u003e was ensured by anonymizing through giving pseudonyms and removing identifying details from transcripts. \\u003cstrong\\u003eVoluntariness of participation\\u003c/strong\\u003e was emphasized, with participants informed that their involvement was entirely optional and that they could decline to answer any question without consequence. A clear protocol for \\u003cstrong\\u003ewithdrawal from the study\\u003c/strong\\u003e was provided, allowing participants to discontinue at any stage without penalty or negative implications. Prior to data collection, participants were briefed on the objectives of the study, the procedures involved, and the potential benefits and risks, ensuring \\u003cstrong\\u003einformed consent\\u003c/strong\\u003e was obtained.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"RESULTS\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eMechanism Used to Manage and Enforce Medium of Instruction Policy\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch4\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eMultilingual Instruction Enhances Comprehension\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/h4\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAt Megara, multilingual instruction is widely recognized by faculty as a key strategy to enhance student comprehension. For instance, \\u003cstrong\\u003eNobody\\u003c/strong\\u003e, who teaches Information Technology subjects, directly states, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Comprehension is evident when I code switch,\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/em\\u003e emphasizing how alternating between English, Filipino, and Cebuano helps bridge understanding gaps in technical content. Similarly, \\u003cstrong\\u003eBatman\\u003c/strong\\u003e, who teaches Life and Works of Dr. Jose Rizal and Music, affirms, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Students comprehend the lessons better when I use a combination of English and Cebuano,\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/em\\u003e suggesting that a blended language approach aligns better with students\\u0026rsquo; actual proficiencies. \\u003cstrong\\u003eRobotech\\u003c/strong\\u003e, teaching Understanding the Self, adds, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Allowing multilingual instructions\\u0026hellip; students can understand better,\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/em\\u003e reinforcing the idea that rigid English-only instruction may hinder learning.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThese confessions reflect a shared pedagogical insight, while institutional policy may prescribe English as the medium of instruction, faculty prioritize comprehension and engagement by adapting their language use. This multilingual strategy not only supports student learning but also demonstrates how educators balance policy requirements with the linguistic realities of their classrooms.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch4\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eFaculty Development Through Experience\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/h4\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAt Megara, faculty development is often shaped more by direct classroom experience than by formal training programs. Educators learn to refine their instructional language and strategies through trial, reflection, and student feedback. This experiential approach is evident in the statement by \\u003cstrong\\u003eNobody\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003ewho shares, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Actual experience showed me how to give instructions and what language to use.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/em\\u003e This highlights how real-time teaching challenges and student responses guide the evolution of effective practices.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eNobody further explains, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;I cannot say my instructions are effective unless I see outputs that meet expectations,\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/em\\u003e emphasizing that instructional success is measured not by adherence to policy or training, but by tangible student outcomes. These insights suggest that faculty rely heavily on their own classroom observations to adjust language use, often blending English, Filipino, and Cebuano, to ensure students grasp the material.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch4\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eFaculty Development Support\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/h4\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAt Megara, faculty development programs play a meaningful role in equipping educators with inclusive language strategies that support multilingual instruction. These structured opportunities, such as workshops, seminars, and peer-sharing sessions, enable teachers to reflect on their language practices and adapt them to meet diverse student needs.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eBoss Kenchen\\u003c/strong\\u003e, who teaches Radio Drama and Documentary, shares a detailed account, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Faculty development has been helpful in equipping me with teaching strategies that are sensitive to students\\u0026rsquo; varying language proficiencies. Through workshops, seminars, and peer-sharing sessions, I gained exposure to approaches\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003esuch as translanguaging, scaffolding, and contextualized instruction, which I now apply to make lessons more accessible.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e This statement illustrates how institutional efforts have helped faculty move beyond traditional English-only instruction and embrace flexible, student-centered approaches.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eBy fostering awareness and providing practical tools, these development programs empower educators to navigate bilingual and multilingual classrooms more effectively. Boss Kenchen\\u0026rsquo;s narrative suggests that while not universal, such support is typical among faculty who actively engage in professional growth initiatives.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch4\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eStudent Language Preferences Matter\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/h4\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAt Megara, faculty observations consistently highlight the importance of language comfort in fostering student engagement and expression. Teachers note that students are more confident and participative when allowed to use their local dialect or a mix of languages during instruction. This is clearly expressed by \\u003cstrong\\u003eBossKenchen\\u003c/strong\\u003e, who teaches Radio Drama \\u0026amp; Documentary: \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Many students are more comfortable expressing their ideas or opinion.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e His statement reflects how linguistic familiarity encourages students to articulate thoughts more freely, especially in creative or discussion-based subjects.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eSimilarly, \\u003cstrong\\u003eBattered Wife\\u003c/strong\\u003e observes, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;They can adapt and are comfortable in their local dialect,\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/em\\u003e suggesting that students\\u0026rsquo; ease with their native language supports better comprehension and classroom interaction. These insights reveal that language choice is not merely a medium of instruction, it is a tool for inclusion, confidence-building, and meaningful participation.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe narrative points out a key pedagogical principle that when students feel linguistically secure, they are more likely to engage, contribute, and succeed. Faculty responses affirm that embracing multilingual practices is essential to creating responsive and equitable learning environments.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch4\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eInstitutional Mechanisms\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/h4\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAt Megara, institutional support for the Medium of Instruction Policy appears limited and inconsistent, as reflected in several faculty narratives. \\u003cstrong\\u003eBattered Wife\\u003c/strong\\u003e, a Science teacher, plainly states, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;None,\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/em\\u003e when asked about mechanisms used to manage and enforce the policy, indicating a complete absence of formal guidance. This sentiment is echoed in her follow-up remark, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;There is no support. I took the initiative to improve my own,\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/em\\u003e revealing a reliance on personal effort rather than institutional backing.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eSimilarly, \\u003cstrong\\u003eNobody\\u003c/strong\\u003e, who teaches IT subjects, points to a \\u003cem\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Lack of clear institutional\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003eguidelines,\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e suggesting that ambiguity in policy implementation leaves educators to interpret and apply language strategies independently. These statements underscore a broader issue, without structured support or clear directives, faculty are left to navigate bilingual or multilingual instruction on their own, often relying on experience and intuition rather than coordinated institutional efforts.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch4\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eCurriculum Constraints\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/h4\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAt Megara, some faculty members point to curriculum structure, particularly rigid syllabi and time constraints, as barriers to flexible language use in the classroom. These institutional limitations restrict their ability to adjust instruction based on students\\u0026rsquo; comprehension levels and linguistic needs.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eBatman\\u003c/strong\\u003e, who teaches \\u003cem\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eLife and Works of Dr. Jose Rizal\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/em\\u003e and \\u003cem\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eTeaching Music in Elementary Grades\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/em\\u003e, directly references this challenge, stating: \\u003cem\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Syllabi, Modules,\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/em\\u003e as mechanisms that shape how the Medium of Instruction Policy is enforced. He further explains, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Time limitations and students\\u0026rsquo; comprehension skills,\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e suggesting that the pressure to cover prescribed content within limited time frames often prevents the use of adaptive, multilingual strategies. This narrative reveals a tension between policy-driven curriculum design and the practical realities of student learning. While faculty recognize the value of using mixed languages to support comprehension, institutional structures may limit their ability to do so consistently.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch2\\u003eFaculty Adjustment in Teaching/Language Practices with Challenges in Implementing the Medium of Instruction Policy\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n\\u003ch2\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eMultilingual Flexibility in Instruction\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAt Megara College, multilingual flexibility in instruction emerges as a defining feature of classroom practice. Teachers actively use English, Filipino, and Cebuano to enhance comprehension and foster a more inclusive and engaging learning environment. This approach reflects not only a pedagogical strategy but also a deep awareness of students\\u0026rsquo; linguistic backgrounds and the realities of classroom diversity.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eRobotech exemplifies a balanced stance, stating, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Although I use multilingual and allow my students to do the same, I always encourage them to use English.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e This reflects a thoughtful negotiation between institutional expectations and the practical needs of learners. By promoting English while allowing space for other languages, Robotech supports language development without alienating students who may struggle with English as a second or third language.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eBatman echoes this dual commitment, explaining,\\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u0026ldquo;I comply with the policy by using English formally, but I also value student diversity by integrating Filipino and Cebuano.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e His statement reveals a conscious effort to uphold formal language policies while recognizing the importance of cultural and linguistic inclusivity. By weaving Filipino and Cebuano into instruction, Batman validates students\\u0026rsquo; identities and enhances their engagement.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eBossKenchen takes a more targeted approach, emphasizing the strategic use of the mother tongue, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;I incorporate the students\\u0026rsquo; first language as a bridge for comprehension when necessary.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e This highlights the cognitive benefits of using familiar language to scaffold understanding, especially when introducing complex or abstract concepts. His method underscores the role of language as a tool for learning rather than a barrier.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eBattered wife offers a candid reflection on the challenges of multilingual instruction, describing her method as a \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Challenging adjustment and flexible in my approach.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e Her words suggest a willingness to adapt and respond to the evolving needs of her students. Flexibility, in this context, becomes a form of responsiveness, an essential quality in linguistically diverse classrooms. Meanwhile, Nobody\\u0026rsquo;s succinct remark, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;I translate,\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e points to a straightforward yet effective strategy. While less elaborate than others, this approach ensures that students can access content in a language they understand, reinforcing the practical value of multilingual support.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch2\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eUse of Code-Switching and Visual Aids\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eIn addressing language barriers within the classroom, teachers at Megara College demonstrate a proactive and resourceful approach, employing code-switching and visual aids as key strategies to enhance student comprehension. These tools serve not only to simplify instruction but also to make abstract concepts more accessible, especially for learners grappling with unfamiliar academic language.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eBatman outlines a comprehensive instructional method, stating, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Code-switching, simplifying explanations, visual aids, scaffolding\\u0026hellip;\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e His list reflects a layered and intentional approach to teaching, where multiple strategies are combined to support diverse learners. By integrating these techniques, Batman ensures that students are not left behind due to linguistic challenges, but instead are guided through content in a way that builds understanding step by step.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eBossKenchen echoes this sentiment, sharing, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Encourage code-switching\\u0026hellip; use visual aids, diagrams\\u0026hellip;\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e His emphasis on visual representation suggests a deliberate effort to make complex ideas more concrete. Diagrams and other visual tools help bridge the gap between verbal instruction and conceptual grasp, especially in subjects that rely heavily on abstract reasoning.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eBattered wife also highlights the importance of these strategies, noting, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Sometimes I used code-switching, visual aids\\u0026hellip;\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e She particularly applies them in science, where hands-on activities and visual demonstrations complement verbal explanations. This approach reflects an understanding that learning is multifaceted and that combining linguistic and visual input can significantly improve student engagement and retention.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eRobotech takes a culturally responsive route, stating, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;I explained or discuss in Cebuano.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e By using the students\\u0026rsquo; native language, Robotech enables learners to process information more comfortably and confidently. This method not only aids comprehension but also affirms the students\\u0026rsquo; linguistic identity, fostering a more inclusive classroom environment.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eIn contrast, Nobody offers a more spontaneous approach, admitting, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;I don\\u0026rsquo;t use specific strategy, I will just do whatever is applicable.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e While less structured, this flexibility allows for real-time responsiveness to student needs. It suggests a willingness to adapt based on the situation, even if it lacks the intentional layering seen in other teachers\\u0026rsquo; methods.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch2\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eBalancing Policy with Student Needs\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eIn the context of language instruction at Megara College, teachers exhibit a conscientious effort to balance institutional mandates with the linguistic realities of their students. This theme of compliance paired with accommodation reflects a typical but meaningful approach to classroom language use, where educators navigate formal expectations while remaining sensitive to student needs.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eBatman articulates this dual commitment clearly, stating, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;I comply with the policy\\u0026hellip; while still valuing students\\u0026rsquo; diverse linguistic needs.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e His statement underscores a deliberate effort to uphold official language requirements, likely emphasizing English as the mandated medium, while also creating space for linguistic diversity. This approach reflects an understanding that rigid adherence to policy alone may hinder student engagement and comprehension, especially in multilingual settings.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eBossKenchen takes a scaffolded approach to language learning, explaining, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;I create spaces where students can use their preferred language\\u0026hellip;\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e before transitioning to the mandated medium. His strategy allows students to first express themselves in a language they are comfortable with, building confidence and understanding, before gradually shifting to the formal language of instruction. This method not only respects students\\u0026rsquo; linguistic backgrounds but also supports their development in the target language through a gradual and supportive process.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eBattered wife offers a reflective perspective, sharing, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Bridging policies by respecting policies and acknowledging students\\u0026rsquo; local languages.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e Her statement suggests a thoughtful negotiation between institutional expectations and the cultural-linguistic context of the classroom. By acknowledging local languages, she affirms students\\u0026rsquo; identities and fosters inclusivity, while still maintaining respect for formal guidelines.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch2\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eLanguage Ideologies Influence Implementation\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAt Megara College, teachers demonstrate a thoughtful awareness of how differing beliefs about language shape the interpretation and application of the Medium of Instruction Policy. This theme reflects a typical but significant dynamic in multilingual educational settings, where language ideologies, ranging from the prioritization of English to the affirmation of mother tongue use, inform instructional choices and policy compliance.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eBoss Kenchen captures this tension succinctly, stating, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Some view English as the only language of academic success\\u0026hellip; others believe in the importance of mother tongue use.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e His reflection reveals the ideological divide that often exists within educational communities. On one hand, English is seen as a gateway to global opportunities and academic prestige; on the other, the mother tongue is valued for its role in grounding understanding, preserving identity, and fostering inclusive learning.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThis recognition of competing beliefs allows teachers to approach policy implementation with greater sensitivity and adaptability. Rather than rigidly enforcing a one-size-fits-all language mandate, educators consider the cultural and cognitive needs of their students. They understand that language is not merely a tool for instruction but a reflection of deeper social values and educational philosophies.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eLack of Clear Strategy or Awareness\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThis reveals a significant gap in teacher preparedness. While the policy sets expectations for language use in classrooms, its success depends heavily on how well educators understand and apply it. Unfortunately, not all teachers feel equipped to meet these demands. This uncertainty manifests in candid admissions of Nobody who says, \\u0026ldquo;I don\\u0026rsquo;t know the answer to this question,\\u0026rdquo; and \\u0026ldquo;I don\\u0026rsquo;t use specific strategy,\\u0026rdquo; which point to a deeper issue of insufficient guidance and support.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThese statements are not merely expressions of momentary confusion, they reflect a systemic challenge. When teachers openly acknowledge their lack of strategy, it suggests that professional development around MOI has been uneven or inadequate. This lack of clarity can lead to inconsistent implementation across classrooms, where some educators may rely on instinct or ad hoc methods rather than structured approaches. As a result, students may experience varying levels of language support depending on their teacher\\u0026rsquo;s confidence and familiarity with the policy.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe implications of this theme are far-reaching. Teachers who lack clear strategies may struggle to scaffold language learning effectively, especially in multilingual settings. Their uncertainty can affect classroom dynamics, student engagement, and even assessment practices. Moreover, the absence of a shared framework for MOI implementation can hinder collaboration among educators, making it difficult to exchange best practices or troubleshoot common challenges.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eLanguage Beliefs and Ideologies in Policy Implementation\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eMisalignment Between Policy and Practice\\u003cbr\\u003eInstitutional language policies in many educational settings often prescribe English or Filipino as the official medium of instruction. These top-down mandates are designed to standardize communication and align with national or global linguistic priorities. However, in actual classroom practice, educators frequently adopt a more flexible, multilingual approach to support student understanding. This divergence between policy and practice reflects a deeper tension between institutional expectations and the lived realities of diverse learning environments.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eBoss Kenchen captures this disconnect by stating, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;This reveals a gap between top-down mandates and the lived realities of multilingual classrooms.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e His observation highlights how rigid policies can overlook the complex linguistic landscapes that students and teachers navigate daily. In multilingual communities, students may be more comfortable expressing themselves in their local languages, and teachers often respond by code-switching or using translanguaging techniques to ensure comprehension and engagement.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eRobotech emphasizes the importance of inclusive language practices, saying, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Allow them to use language that everybody can understand\\u0026hellip; without neglecting the use of English.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e This statement reflects a balanced pedagogical approach, valuing English for its institutional and global relevance while recognizing the necessity of using accessible language to facilitate learning. It suggests that effective instruction does not require abandoning policy but rather adapting it to meet students\\u0026rsquo; needs.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eBatman adds another layer to the analysis by pointing out, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;There is often a gap between policy and practice because language beliefs and student needs don\\u0026rsquo;t always match institutional management.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e His insight underscores the ideological and cultural dimensions of language use in education. Teachers and students bring their own beliefs and experiences into the classroom, which may conflict with institutional directives. This misalignment can lead to frustration, reduced engagement, and missed opportunities for deeper learning.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eFlexibility in Language Practices\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eIn multilingual educational settings, teachers often find themselves navigating between institutional language policies and the linguistic realities of their students. While English may be the prescribed medium of instruction, educators frequently incorporate local languages such as Cebuano and Filipino to ensure that learning is inclusive, effective, and responsive to students\\u0026rsquo; needs.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eBoss Kenchen highlights this adaptive approach, stating, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Faculty and students tend to adjust in ways that make learning more effective.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e This reflects a shared understanding between educators and learners that rigid adherence to a single language can hinder comprehension. Instead, both parties engage in dynamic language practices that prioritize clarity and connection.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eBatman offers a concrete example of this strategy in action: \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;I integrate Filipino and Cebuano when needed\\u0026hellip; bridge the gap between institutional expectations and students\\u0026rsquo; linguistic realities.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e His statement underscores the role of the teacher as a mediator, not just of content, but of language itself. By blending languages, Batman ensures that students are not alienated by unfamiliar terms and can engage more deeply with the material.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe phrase \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Flexibility and adaptability,\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e shared by Battered wife, encapsulates the ethos of this pedagogical approach. It suggests that effective teaching in multilingual contexts requires not just linguistic skill, but a mindset open to change and responsive to diversity. This adaptability is not a deviation from professionalism, it is a hallmark of culturally competent instruction.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eUncertainty or Lack of Awareness\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eIn the complex landscape of multilingual education, not all educators feel confident about how institutional language policies align with their day-to-day classroom practices. While some teachers actively adapt and negotiate these policies, others express uncertainty or a lack of clarity about what is expected of them or how their practices fit within official guidelines.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThis uncertainty is captured succinctly in the direct statement by Nobody, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;I don\\u0026rsquo;t know.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e Though brief, this response is deeply telling. It reflects a broader issue within educational institutions, namely, the insufficient communication or professional development surrounding language policy implementation. When educators are unsure about the policies they are meant to follow, it can lead to inconsistent practices, hesitation in decision-making, and a lack of confidence in their pedagogical choices.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe ambiguity also suggests that language policy may be perceived as abstract or disconnected from the realities of the classroom. Without clear guidance or contextualized support, teachers may struggle to interpret how to apply these policies in ways that are both compliant and responsive to their students\\u0026rsquo; linguistic needs.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThis lack of awareness is not necessarily a reflection of teacher disengagement, but rather a signal that institutional structures may not be providing the clarity, training, or dialogue necessary for effective policy enactment. It underscores the need for more inclusive policy development processes, ones that involve teachers as active participants and acknowledge the diverse linguistic contexts in which they work.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eInstitutional Policies vs. Everyday Practices\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eIn many educational institutions, language policies are crafted with the goal of promoting English as the primary medium of instruction. This emphasis is often tied to aspirations for global competitiveness, academic standardization, and alignment with international benchmarks. However, the realities of classroom life tell a different story, one shaped by the linguistic diversity of students and the practical needs of teaching and learning.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eBatman articulates this tension clearly: \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Institutional policies usually push for English, but in practice\\u0026hellip; Filipino and Cebuano.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e His statement reveals a common pattern in multilingual regions like the Philippines, where students are more fluent and comfortable in local languages. Teachers, recognizing this, often shift away from strict English-only instruction to incorporate Filipino and Cebuano, ensuring that students grasp the material and feel included in the learning process.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eBossKenchen echoes this observation, noting, \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Institutional policies often promote English or Filipino\\u0026hellip; but in everyday practice\\u0026hellip; use a mix of languages.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e This reflects a pragmatic approach among educators who prioritize comprehension and engagement over rigid policy adherence. The use of multiple languages becomes a pedagogical tool, one that bridges gaps in understanding and fosters a more inclusive classroom environment.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe typical conflict arises when institutional mandates clash with these everyday practices. While policies may be designed with good intentions, they often fail to account for the linguistic realities of students and the adaptive strategies of teachers. This disconnect can lead to confusion, inconsistency, and even tension between administrators and educators.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003ePersonal Beliefs vs. Institutional Mandates\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eIn multilingual educational contexts, teachers often find themselves balancing institutional language mandates with their personal beliefs about effective pedagogy. While official policies may emphasize English as the medium of instruction, many educators prioritize student comprehension and inclusion, choosing to integrate local languages like Filipino and Cebuano to support learning.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThis tension is rooted in a shared understanding among teachers that language should serve as a bridge, not a barrier, to education. Boss Kenchen articulates this belief clearly: \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Language should be a tool for inclusion, not a barrier.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e His statement reflects a values-driven approach to teaching, where the goal is not just to meet institutional standards but to ensure that every student feels seen, heard, and understood.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eBatman reinforces this perspective with a practical response: \\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Student understanding comes first\\u0026hellip; integrate Filipino and Cebuano.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e His words highlight a common strategy among educators, complying with policy while adapting instruction to meet students\\u0026rsquo; linguistic realities. This approach acknowledges that rigid adherence to English-only instruction can alienate learners, especially those who are more fluent in local languages.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"DISCUSSION\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eMechanism Used to Manage and Enforce Medium of Instruction Policy\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch4\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eMultilingual Instruction Enhances Comprehension\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/h4\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eFaculty at Megara emphasize that switching between English, Filipino, and Cebuano enhances student comprehension, particularly in technical and theoretical subjects. This practice aligns with Bravo-Sotelo and Metila (2023), who found that teacher code-switching in tertiary classrooms serves key pedagogical functions such as clarifying abstract concepts, managing classroom discourse, and fostering rapport. Similarly, Bravo-Sotelo (2020) reported that Tagalog-English code-switching improved student engagement and understanding, especially when explaining complex ideas.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe Megara faculty\\u0026rsquo;s approach also reflects broader tensions between institutional language policies and classroom realities. Bravo-Sotelo et al. (2024) describe this as a \\u0026ldquo;tug-of-war\\u0026rdquo; between English-only mandates and the practical benefits of multilingual instruction. Yet, not all scholars fully endorse code-switching. Rengur et al. (2025) caution that excessive reliance on it may limit students\\u0026rsquo; opportunities to practice English, foster dependency on the first language, and impede fluency and communicative competence.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eMultilingual instruction through code-switching enhances comprehension and engagement by making complex concepts more accessible and responsive to students\\u0026rsquo; linguistic realities. However, it also underscores the need for balance: while effective in the short term, overuse may hinder long-term English development. A strategic approach is therefore necessary to support both immediate understanding and sustained language growth.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch4\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eFaculty Development Through Experience\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/h4\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe experiential approach described by Megara College faculty, where instructional strategies evolve through trial, reflection, and student feedback, is echoed in the work of \\u003cem\\u003eGonzales (2023)\\u003c/em\\u003e who emphasizes that \\u003cstrong\\u003eteachers often refine their methods through direct interaction with students\\u003c/strong\\u003e, adapting based on observed learning outcomes rather than rigid adherence to policy or training modules. The result further supported by Santos and Castro (2021) who found that \\u003cstrong\\u003eteachers developed new pedagogical strategies through hands-on experience with online platforms\\u003c/strong\\u003e, often without formal training. However, \\u003cem\\u003eBautista (1991)\\u003c/em\\u003e argues that while experiential learning is valuable, \\u003cstrong\\u003estructured professional development is essential to ensure consistency, equity, and linguistic competence across diverse classrooms\\u003c/strong\\u003e. She suggests that without formal guidance, teachers may unintentionally reinforce linguistic hierarchies or fail to meet broader educational standards. It implies that experiential approach to faculty development at Megara College highlights the value of learning through direct classroom engagement, reflection, and student feedback. This method fosters adaptive teaching strategies tailored to real-time challenges. However, relying solely on experience may lead to inconsistencies and overlooked pedagogical gaps. To ensure equitable and linguistically competent instruction, experiential learning should be complemented by structured professional development that provides theoretical grounding and aligns with broader educational standards.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch4\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eFaculty Development Support\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/h4\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe participants accounts illustrate how structured professional development, through workshops, seminars, and peer-sharing sessions, has equipped them with pedagogical tools like translanguaging, scaffolding, and contextualized instruction. This experience aligns with the findings of \\u003cem\\u003eDe Los Reyes (2019)\\u003c/em\\u003e, who said that translanguaging in multilingual classrooms emphasizes that \\u003cstrong\\u003eteacher training plays a critical role in enabling educators to use students\\u0026rsquo; full linguistic repertoires to enhance learning\\u003c/strong\\u003e. She argues that faculty development fosters reflective practice and empowers teachers to move beyond rigid language policies, making instruction more inclusive and effective. Similarly, \\u003cem\\u003eTiongson (2018)\\u003c/em\\u003e supports the idea that \\u003cstrong\\u003efaculty development initiatives encourage critical pedagogy and inclusive language practices\\u003c/strong\\u003e, especially when educators engage in cross-disciplinary dialogue and peer mentoring. However, \\u003cem\\u003eBautista (1991)\\u003c/em\\u003e offers a more cautious perspective and argues that \\u003cstrong\\u003ewhile faculty development can promote inclusive strategies, it must be systematically aligned with institutional goals and national standards\\u003c/strong\\u003e. She warns that without consistent implementation and policy support, programs may lead to fragmented practices and reinforce linguistic inequalities. This implies that structured professional development equips educators with inclusive teaching strategies that enhance multilingual instruction and promote reflective practice. These initiatives empower teachers to adapt their methods to diverse linguistic contexts, fostering more effective and student-centered learning. However, without consistent alignment with institutional goals and policy support, such programs risk uneven implementation and may inadvertently reinforce educational disparities. A balanced approach that integrates both practical training and systemic coherence is essential for sustainable impact.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch4\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eStudent Language Preferences Matter\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/h4\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eFaculty at Megara consistently observe that students are more confident and expressive when allowed to use their native languages, Filipino, Cebuano, or a mix of dialects, during instruction. This result is aligned with the findings of \\u003cem\\u003eBernardo (2017)\\u003c/em\\u003e, who emphasizes that \\u003cstrong\\u003estudents\\u0026rsquo; comfort with familiar linguistic forms enhances classroom participation and comprehension\\u003c/strong\\u003e. He argues that incorporating students\\u0026rsquo; linguistic backgrounds into instruction fosters a more inclusive and responsive learning environment. Similarly, Colorada and \\u003cem\\u003eEslit (2020)\\u003c/em\\u003e suggest that \\u003cstrong\\u003estudents who feel linguistically secure in their native dialects demonstrate stronger engagement and adaptability.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003eHowever, \\u003cem\\u003eBautista (2022)\\u003c/em\\u003e cautions that \\u003cstrong\\u003ewhile local language use promotes inclusion and confidence, it must be balanced with opportunities to develop English fluency\\u003c/strong\\u003e. The finding implies that allowing students to use their native languages in the classroom fosters greater confidence, participation, and comprehension, especially in discussion-based and creative subjects.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch4\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eInstitutional Mechanisms\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/h4\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eParticipants narratives revealed a lack of formal mechanisms guiding the enforcement of MOI policies. This situation reflects broader challenges in Philippine higher education, where language policy often lacks operational clarity and institutional coherence. This finding coincides with the view Cabansag (2013) that \\u003cstrong\\u003eeffective Medium of Instruction (MoI) implementation requires structured institutional mechanisms because\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003ewithout administrative support, faculty are left to interpret policies independently, which can lead to inconsistent practices and reduced instructional effectiveness. In contrast, \\u003cem\\u003ePun and Jia (2025)\\u003c/em\\u003e offers a more critical lens and \\u0026nbsp;suggests that \\u003cstrong\\u003etop-down enforcement of Medium of Instruction (MoI) policies may overlook the contextual realities of local classrooms\\u003c/strong\\u003e. However, \\u003cem\\u003ePhyak and Khanal (2025)\\u003c/em\\u003e, caution that \\u003cstrong\\u003erelying solely on teacher discretion without institutional scaffolding risks perpetuating inequities and undermining policy goals\\u003c/strong\\u003e. They emphasize that language policies must be both flexible and supported by institutional infrastructure to ensure equitable access to quality education across diverse linguistic communities. It implies that the absence of formal mechanisms for enforcing Medium of Instruction (MOI) policies highlights a broader issue of institutional ambiguity in language governance. While teacher autonomy allows for contextual responsiveness, lack of structured support can lead to inconsistent practices and diminished instructional effectiveness.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch4\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eCurriculum Constraints\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/h4\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eFaculty highlights how institutional structures, particularly fixed syllabi and limited instructional time, constrain their ability to adapt language use to students\\u0026rsquo; comprehension levels. This concern is echoed in the work of Pamittan (2019), who found that rigid curriculum frameworks often hinder the implementation of Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE), especially when teachers are pressured to meet standardized content requirements. Reyes and Harvey (2020), similarly argues that curriculum design in Philippine education often lacks the flexibility needed to accommodate diverse linguistic contexts. They advocate for a more responsive curriculum that allows teachers to integrate multilingual strategies without compromising content delivery. However, Niebres and Cabansag (2024) offer a contrasting perspective, suggesting that standardized syllabi and structured modules can provide consistency and ensure that learning objectives are uniformly met across institutions. The tension between policy-driven curriculum design and classroom realities is further explored by Espino et al. (2021), who critiques top-down educational reforms that fail to consider local classroom dynamics. They argue that while curriculum standards are necessary, they must be co-developed with educators to ensure they are both contextually relevant and pedagogically sound. The finding implies that curriculum constraints such as rigid syllabi and limited instructional time can hinder educators\\u0026rsquo; ability to adapt language use to students\\u0026rsquo; diverse comprehension levels. While standardized frameworks offer consistency and help ensure uniform learning outcomes, they may also restrict the integration of multilingual strategies that support inclusive and responsive teaching.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eFaculty Adjustment in Teaching/Language Practices with Challenges in Implementing the Medium of Instruction Policy\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch2\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eMultilingual Flexibility in Instruction\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eParticipants narrative from Megara College reveal a dynamic and responsive use of English, Filipino, and Cebuano to enhance student comprehension and engagement. This multilingual approach reflects a pedagogical commitment to inclusivity and linguistic relevance. The participants\\u0026rsquo; balanced stance, encouraging English while permitting multilingual expression, corresponds with Bernardo\\u0026rsquo;s (2017) assertion that integrating Philippine English and local dialects into instruction fosters deeper engagement, supports comprehension, and promotes equitable learning environments, particularly in ESL contexts. By validating students\\u0026rsquo; linguistic backgrounds, educators create spaces that are both culturally responsive and pedagogically sound. Moreover, the integration of Filipino and Cebuano alongside formal English use aligns with Martinez and Martin\\u0026rsquo;s (2025) advocacy for context-sensitive multilingual education. Their work emphasizes the importance of teacher agency and cultural inclusivity, challenging rigid policy enforcement and affirming the role of educators in adapting instruction to classroom realities. This perspective reinforces the notion that multilingual instruction not only supports learning but also affirms student identity and fosters classroom responsiveness.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eIn addition, the strategic use of the mother tongue as a scaffold for comprehension reflects cognitive theories of language acquisition, particularly Machimana\\u0026rsquo;s (2020) interpretation of interdependence hypothesis. This theory posits that students\\u0026rsquo; first language can facilitate second language development through cognitive transfer. Supporting this view, Niebres and Cabansag (2024) demonstrate that native language integration significantly enhances academic performance, especially in reading and conceptual understanding, thereby reinforcing the effectiveness of multilingual pedagogies. However, Bautista (1991) argues that while multilingual instruction promotes inclusion, it must be balanced with deliberate English language development to ensure academic readiness and global competence. Over-reliance on local languages, she warns, may impede students\\u0026rsquo; performance in standardized assessments and limit their professional communication skills. Finally, the participants\\u0026rsquo; use of flexibility and translation underscores the adaptive nature of multilingual teaching. These strategies, though varied in complexity, reflect a commitment to accessibility and responsiveness. Both Martinez and Martin (2025) and Bernardo (2017) affirm that teacher adaptability is essential in linguistically diverse classrooms, where rigid language policies often fail to meet the nuanced needs of learners.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch2\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eUse of Code-Switching and Visual Aids\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eParticipants employ code-switching and visual aids to address linguistic barriers and support diverse learners. Participant\\u0026rsquo;s layered approach, combining code-switching, scaffolding, and visual tools, reflects best practices in multilingual pedagogy. This aligns with Metila (2009), who found that \\u003cstrong\\u003ecode-switching serves multiple functions in Philippine classrooms\\u003c/strong\\u003e, including clarifying content, managing classroom discourse, and fostering inclusivity. She emphasizes that strategic code-switching can bridge gaps between academic language and students\\u0026rsquo; everyday linguistic repertoires, thereby enhancing comprehension and participation.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe use of diagrams and visual representation is supported by Estremera (2023), who highlights the role of \\u003cstrong\\u003evisual aids in improving conceptual understanding.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003eVisual tools help concretize abstract ideas and cater to varied learning styles, making them especially valuable in linguistically diverse settings. The utilization of code-switching and visual demonstrations in instruction echoes findings by Metila et al. (2016), who examined \\u003cstrong\\u003emultilingual education is\\u003c/strong\\u003e complex subject areas. Their research suggests that combining linguistic and visual scaffolds allows students to access content more effectively, especially when dealing with unfamiliar academic terminology.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe culturally responsive use of Cebuano aligns with Bautista\\u0026rsquo;s (2022) work on \\u003cstrong\\u003ecode-switching as a marker of identity and inclusion\\u003c/strong\\u003e. Bautista argues that using students\\u0026rsquo; native languages in instruction not only aids comprehension but also affirms their cultural and linguistic identities. This practice fosters a sense of belonging and encourages active participation, particularly among students who may feel marginalized by English-only policies. However, few scholars caution against unstructured or excessive use of code-switching. Bautista (1991) warns that over-reliance\\u003cstrong\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;on local languages may hinder English language development\\u003c/strong\\u003e, which is crucial for academic and professional success. She advocates for a balanced approach that supports multilingualism while ensuring students gain proficiency in English.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch2\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eBalancing Policy with Student Needs\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe participant\\u0026rsquo;s efforts to uphold formal language policies while accommodating students\\u0026rsquo; linguistic diversity reflect a broader pedagogical tension between top-down mandates and classroom realities. This approach of the participant aligns with Martin (2020), who emphasizes the importance of \\u003cstrong\\u003eteacher agency in navigating multilingual contexts\\u003c/strong\\u003e. Martin argues that effective language instruction must be responsive to students\\u0026rsquo; linguistic backgrounds, and that educators should be empowered to adapt their methods accordingly to foster inclusivity and comprehension.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe scaffolding used by the participant allows students to use their preferred language before transitioning to English, illustrates a gradual and supportive model of language development. This method resonates with Cummins\\u0026rsquo; (2000) who mentioned that proficiency in the first language can facilitate second language acquisition. Niebres and Cabansag (2024) supports this view, noting that \\u003cstrong\\u003enative language integration enhances academic performance\\u003c/strong\\u003e, particularly in reading and conceptual understanding. Such scaffolding not only builds confidence but also reinforces cognitive connections, making formal instruction more accessible.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe other participant\\u0026rsquo;s reflection on \\u0026ldquo;bridging policies\\u0026rdquo; by acknowledging local languages while respecting institutional guidelines highlights the importance of cultural responsiveness in education is consistent with the findings of Tupas and Lorente (2014), who argue that \\u003cstrong\\u003elanguage policies must be interpreted and enacted within the sociocultural realities of the classroom\\u003c/strong\\u003e. They emphasize that educators play a critical role in mediating policy and practice, and that acknowledging students\\u0026rsquo; linguistic identities contributes to more equitable and effective learning environments. In contrast, Paudel (2023) highlights that \\u003cstrong\\u003estrict policy adherence without contextual adaptation often leads to disengagement and reduced learning outcomes\\u003c/strong\\u003e, especially in linguistically diverse classrooms. This findings imply that effective language instruction requires balancing formal policy with students\\u0026rsquo; linguistic realities. Scaffolding through native language use enhances comprehension and confidence, supporting cognitive development.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eLanguage Ideologies Influence Implementation\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe participants exhibit an understanding of how beliefs about language shape instructional decisions. Some view English as the only language of academic success while others believe in the importance of mother tongue use. This ideological divide is well-documented by Velasco (2019), who explores how English is often positioned as a symbol of academic prestige and global mobility in Philippine education and argues that such ideologies can marginalize local languages and reinforce elitist notions of linguistic capital, especially in urban and private school contexts. Conversely, Tupas and Lorente (2014) advocate for the affirmation of mother tongue use, emphasizing its role in fostering inclusive and meaningful learning. They support the idea that language is not merely a medium of instruction but a carrier of identity, culture, and cognitive development. This ideological interplay informs how teachers navigate policy implementation. Rather than rigidly enforcing English-only mandates, the participants demonstrate adaptability, considering both institutional expectations and student needs. This approach aligns with Phyak (2024), who critiques monolingual language planning and calls for more context-sensitive policies that empower teachers to make pedagogical decisions rooted in local realities. The findings imply that teachers\\u0026rsquo; beliefs about language significantly influence their instructional choices, revealing a tension between English dominance and mother tongue advocacy. Rather than strictly adhering to English-only policies, educators show flexibility by balancing institutional demands with students\\u0026rsquo; linguistic and cultural needs.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eLack of Clear Strategy or Awareness\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eParticipants\\u0026rsquo; admission of uncertainty reflect more than individual hesitation; they point to broader institutional shortcomings. Metila et al. (2016) affirm that \\u003cstrong\\u003eeffective Medium of Instruction (MOI) implementation requires sustained teacher training and contextualized support\\u003c/strong\\u003e, especially in linguistically diverse settings. This inconsistency is further echoed by Salomone (2023), who argue that \\u003cstrong\\u003elanguage policy in the Philippines is often top-down and poorly communicated\\u003c/strong\\u003e, leaving educators to interpret and implement it based on personal judgment rather than shared frameworks. Such ambiguity undermine collaboration among teachers and hinder the development of best practices. In contrast, Bautista (1991) emphasizes the importance of \\u003cstrong\\u003estructured language planning and teacher preparedness\\u003c/strong\\u003e to ensure that English proficiency is not compromised. She warns that without clear strategies, teachers may default to ad hoc methods that fail to support students\\u0026rsquo; long-term academic and linguistic development. While some flexibility in implementation can allow for responsiveness to student needs, as noted by Phyak (2024), \\u003cstrong\\u003ethis flexibility should be grounded in pedagogical training and institutional guidance\\u003c/strong\\u003e. Otherwise, it risks becoming a source of confusion rather than empowerment.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eLanguage Beliefs and Ideologies in Policy Implementation\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eMisalignment Between Policy and Practice\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eInstitutional language policies in the Philippines often prescribe English or Filipino as the official medium of instruction, aiming to standardize communication and align with national and global priorities. However, classroom realities show a different picture: educators frequently adopt flexible, multilingual approaches such as code-switching and translanguaging to support student comprehension and engagement. Velasco (2025) supports this finding by arguing that English is often positioned as a symbol of academic prestige and global mobility, especially in urban and private school contexts. This ideology can marginalize local languages and reinforce elitist notions of linguistic capital. In contrast, Manan and David (2014) advocate for the affirmation of mother tongue use, emphasizing its role in fostering inclusive and meaningful learning. Ma (2013) further critiques monolingual language planning, calling for context-sensitive policies that empower teachers to make pedagogical decisions rooted in local realities. Similarly, Symaco (2017) notes that the global push for English proficiency in Philippine education often overlooks the sociolinguistic diversity of classrooms, reinforcing the need for more adaptable and inclusive language policies.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eFlexibility in Language Practices\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eIn multilingual educational settings, educators often navigate a complex interplay between institutional language policies, typically favoring English, and the linguistic diversity of their students. The participants in this study reflect a shared understanding that rigid adherence to a single language can hinder comprehension. These findings align with Tupas and Martin (2017), who advocate for Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) as a means to address inequities and promote inclusive learning. They argue that local languages are essential for meaningful instruction and cognitive development, especially in early education. Similarly, Phyak (2024) critiques monolingual language planning and calls for context-sensitive policies that empower teachers to make pedagogical decisions rooted in local realities. Contrastingly, Velasco (2019) cautions that English continues to be positioned as a symbol of academic prestige and global mobility, particularly in urban and private school contexts. This ideology can marginalize local languages and reinforce elitist notions of linguistic capital. Moreover, Tupas and Lorente (2014) support this flexible approach, emphasizing that language is not merely a medium of instruction but a carrier of identity and culture. Their work suggests that effective teaching in multilingual contexts must embrace linguistic diversity rather than suppress it.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eUncertainty or Lack of Awareness\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eIn multilingual educational contexts, many educators express uncertainty about how institutional language policies align with their everyday teaching practices. This lack of clarity reflects a broader issue of insufficient communication and professional development within educational institutions. When teachers are unsure of policy expectations, it can result in inconsistent instructional practices, hesitation in decision-making, and diminished confidence in their pedagogical choices. This finding is supported by Alieto and Buslon (2020), who argue that the implementation of Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) in the Philippines often lacks adequate teacher training and institutional support, leading to confusion and resistance among educators. Without proper orientation and contextualized guidance, teachers may struggle to interpret and apply language policies effectively. Similarly, Cabansag (2021) notes that while language policies aim to promote inclusivity, their top-down nature often alienates teachers who are not involved in the policy-making process, resulting in a disconnect between policy and practice. Adversely, Tupas and Lorente (2014) advocate for a more participatory approach to language policy development, emphasizing the importance of involving teachers in shaping policies that reflect the linguistic realities of their classrooms. Velasco (2019) critiques the dominance of English in Philippine education, arguing that such ideologies can obscure the value of local languages and contribute to policy confusion, especially in multilingual settings.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eInstitutional Policies vs. Everyday Practices\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eIn many Philippine educational institutions, language policies emphasize English as the primary medium of instruction, driven by goals of global competitiveness and academic standardization. However, as participants illustrate, the practical realities of teaching in linguistically diverse classrooms often necessitate the use of local languages such as Filipino and Cebuano. These educators adopt a pragmatic approach, using multiple languages to ensure student comprehension, engagement, and inclusion. This divergence between policy and practice is well-documented in the literature. Tupas and Lorente (2014) argue that while English is promoted as a tool for global mobility, such policies often marginalize local languages and overlook the sociolinguistic contexts of learners. Similarly, Phyak (2024) critiques monolingual language planning and advocates for empowering teachers to make pedagogical decisions based on local realities, aligning with the adaptive strategies described by the participants. Velasco (2019) provides a contrasting perspective by highlighting how English continues to be perceived as a marker of academic prestige, particularly in urban and private school settings. This perception reinforces institutional pressures that may discourage the use of local languages, despite their pedagogical value. \\u0026nbsp;Furthermore, Martin (2018) underscores the importance of translanguaging as a legitimate pedagogical practice in multilingual classrooms. He argues that allowing students to draw on their full linguistic repertoires can enhance learning outcomes and affirm cultural identity.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003ePersonal Beliefs vs. Institutional Mandates\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eIn multilingual educational settings, educators frequently navigate a delicate balance between institutional mandates that promote English as the primary medium of instruction and their personal beliefs about effective teaching. As illustrated, many teachers view language as a means to foster understanding and connection rather than enforce rigid standards. Kiramba (2018) argue that while English is often positioned as a symbol of academic prestige and global mobility, such ideologies can marginalize local languages and hinder inclusive learning. Similarly, Dougherty (2021) advocates for translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy that allows students to draw on their full linguistic repertoires, enhancing both comprehension and identity affirmation. Smith (2025) critiques monolingual language planning and calls for context-sensitive policies that empower teachers to make decisions based on local realities. This aligns with the adaptive strategies described by the participants, who comply with policy while ensuring that instruction remains accessible and meaningful. On the other hand, Canilao (2020) highlights the institutional pressures that reinforce English as the dominant language in Philippine education, particularly in urban and private school contexts. This perspective underscores the systemic challenges teachers face when attempting to reconcile policy with practice. Wang (2008) adds another layer to the discussion by pointing out that many educators lack clarity on how to implement language policies effectively, which can lead to inconsistent practices and diminished confidence.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"CONCLUSION\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eDrawing from Spolsky\\u0026rsquo;s Language Policy Framework (2004) the findings reveal a complex but coherent picture of how educators in multilingual Philippine classrooms navigate institutional mandates. While official policies often promote English as the primary medium of instruction to align with global standards, teachers\\u0026rsquo; actual classroom practices frequently involve the integration of local languages such as Filipino and Cebuano to ensure student comprehension and inclusion. These language practices are deeply informed by teachers\\u0026rsquo; beliefs that language should serve as a bridge to learning rather than a barrier, an ideology that prioritizes accessibility, cultural identity, and pedagogical effectiveness. The tension between institutional expectations and classroom realities underscores a disconnect in policy implementation, where top-down directives may lack contextual sensitivity and fail to engage teachers as active agents. Ultimately, the study illustrates that effective language policy must not only regulate language use but also reflect the lived experiences and values of educators, affirming Spolsky\\u0026rsquo;s assertion that sustainable language policy emerges from the alignment of practice, belief, and management.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"References\",\"content\":\"\\u003col\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eAizawa, I., Rose, H., McKinley, J., \\u0026amp; Thompson, G. (2024). A comparison of content learning outcomes between Japanese and English medium instruction. \\u003cem\\u003eLanguage and Education\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e38\\u003c/em\\u003e(6), 911-930. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2023.2238688\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eAlieto, E. O., \\u0026amp; Buslon, J. B. (2020). Language policy awareness and attitudes toward Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education among pre-service teachers in the Philippines. \\u003cem\\u003eAsian EFL Journal\\u003c/em\\u003e, 27(2), 144\\u0026ndash;164. https://www.elejournals.com/asian-efl-journal/\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eAnnamalah, S. (2024). The value of case study research in practice: A methodological review with practical insights from organisational studies. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Applied Economic Sciences (JAES)\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e19\\u003c/em\\u003e(4 (86)), 485-498. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=1295895\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBautista, A. (2022). Negotiating Ideology, Self, and Classroom Instruction: A Framework of Critical Text Selection for High School English Language Arts Curricula.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBautista, M. L. S. (1991). Code-switching studies in the Philippines. \\u003cem\\u003eInternational Journal of the Sociology of Language\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e1991\\u003c/em\\u003e(88). 10.1515/ijsl.1991.88.19\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBautista, M.L. (2000). \\u003cem\\u003eCode-switching studies in the Philippines\\u003c/em\\u003e. In Cruz, I.R. (Ed.), \\u003cem\\u003eInter/Sections: Isagani R. Cruz and Friends\\u003c/em\\u003e. Manila: Anvil Publishing.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBernardo, A. S. (2017). Philippine English in the ESL classroom: A much closer look. \\u003cem\\u003ePhilippine ESL Journal\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e19\\u003c/em\\u003e(2), 117-144.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBraun, V., \\u0026amp; Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. \\u003cem\\u003eQualitative research in psychology\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e3\\u003c/em\\u003e(2), 77-101. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBravo-Sotelo, K. P. (2020). Exploring the Tagalog-English Code-Switching Types Used for Mathematics Classroom Instruction. \\u003cem\\u003eIAFOR Journal of Education\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e8\\u003c/em\\u003e(1), 47-64. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1245827\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBravo-Sotelo, K. P., \\u0026amp; Metila, R. A. (2023). Determining the pedagogical value of code-switching: functions of teacher code-switching in tertiary level mathematics classrooms. \\u003cem\\u003eInternational Journal of Multilingualism\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e20\\u003c/em\\u003e(3), 1088-1105. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2021.2002332\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBravo-Sotelo, K. P., McLellan, J., \\u0026amp; Haji-Othman, N. A. (2024). The ideological tug-of-war of language policies in the Philippines: perspectives and proposal. \\u003cem\\u003eAsian Englishes\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e26\\u003c/em\\u003e(2), 564-578. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2023.2257946\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eCabansag, J. N. (2013). Effectiveness of middle level managers of state universities and colleges in Cagayan Valley, Philippines. \\u003cem\\u003eResearchers World: Journal of Arts, Science \\u0026amp; Commerce\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e4\\u003c/em\\u003e(1). https://www.proquest.com/openview/23de5505ffa0d25d8334fac2393d7866/1?pq-origsite=gscholar\\u0026amp;cbl=556342\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eCabansag, J. N. (2021). Teachers\\u0026rsquo; perspectives on language policy implementation in multilingual classrooms. \\u003cem\\u003eInternational Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development\\u003c/em\\u003e, 8(6), 45\\u0026ndash;50. https://www.multidisciplinaryjournal.com/\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eCanilao, M. L. E. N. (2020). Foregrounding Philippine Englishes in fostering linguistic equality. \\u003cem\\u003eAsian Englishes\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e22\\u003c/em\\u003e(2), 195-215.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eColorada, S. L., \\u0026amp; Eslit, E. R. (2020). Linguistic Structure and Communication Skills: Basis For Development Program. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Edgar-Eslit/publication/362569497_Linguistic_Structure_and_Communication_Skills_Basis_For_Development_Program/links/62f21ce888b83e7320bd9a91/Linguistic-Structure-and-Communication-Skills-Basis-For-Development-Program.pdf\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eCummins, J. (2000). \\u003cem\\u003eLanguage, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire\\u003c/em\\u003e (Vol. 23). Multilingual matters.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eDe Los Reyes, R. A. (2019). Translanguaging in multilingual third grade ESL classrooms in Mindanao, Philippines. \\u003cem\\u003eInternational Journal of Multilingualism\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e16\\u003c/em\\u003e(3), 302-316.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eDearden, J., \\u0026amp; Beaumont, B. (2024). Lecturers\\u0026apos; professional development for English-medium instruction in higher education. In \\u003cem\\u003eThe Routledge handbook of English-medium instruction in higher education\\u003c/em\\u003e (pp. 49-62). Routledge.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eDougherty, J. (2021). Translanguaging in action: Pedagogy that elevates. \\u003cem\\u003eORTESOL Journal\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e38\\u003c/em\\u003e, 19-32.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eEspino, J. D., Gonzales, D. H. F., \\u0026amp; Martin, I. P. (2021). Multilingual English Language Teaching in the Philippines. \\u003cem\\u003eInternational Journal of TESOL Studies\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e3\\u003c/em\\u003e(3).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eEstremera, M. L. (2023). Information communication and technology (ICT) literacy index of ESL teachers: expectation vs. reality of department of education (DepEd) computerization programme in pedagogy. \\u003cem\\u003eAsia Pacific Journal of Educators and Education\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e38\\u003c/em\\u003e(1), 19-31.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eEvald, M. R., \\u0026amp; Freytag, P. V. (2024). Cases Studies: A Matter of Paradigmatic Stance. In \\u003cem\\u003eCollaborative Research Design: Working with Business for Meaningful Results\\u003c/em\\u003e (pp. 253-276). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eGonzales, C. R. (2023). Culturally Responsive Practices to Improve Instruction for Secondary Emergent Bilingual Students: A Design Development Study. https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/items/1a5627e5-cdb8-495d-b273-fa1f5b105963\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eGonzales, W. D. W. (2024). Philippine englishes in the sino‐philippine lannang context. \\u003cem\\u003eWorld Englishes\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e43\\u003c/em\\u003e(4), 588-606.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHeugh, K. (2023). Language policy, planning, and mobilisation in post-colonial civil societies. In \\u003cem\\u003eThe Routledge handbook of language policy and planning\\u003c/em\\u003e (pp. 113-131). Routledge.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eIchou, A., \\u0026amp; Fathi, S. (2022). Promoting quality, equality and inclusion through rethinking mediums of instruction in Moroccan public schools. \\u003cem\\u003eInternational Journal of Language and Literary Studies\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e4\\u003c/em\\u003e(2), 296-320.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eKamaşak, R., Sahan, K., \\u0026amp; Rose, H. (2021). Academic language-related challenges at an English-medium university. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of English for Academic Purposes\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e49\\u003c/em\\u003e, 100945.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eKiramba, L. K. (2018). Language ideologies and epistemic exclusion. \\u003cem\\u003eLanguage and education\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e32\\u003c/em\\u003e(4), 291-312.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMa, Q. (2013). Matching vocabulary learning process with learning outcome in L2 academic writing: An exploratory case study. \\u003cem\\u003eLinguistics and Education\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e24\\u003c/em\\u003e(2), 237-246.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMachimana, P. N. N. (2020). \\u003cem\\u003eLanguage-Learning Strategies of English Second-Language Learners Participating in Peer Tutoring\\u003c/em\\u003e (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pretoria (South Africa)).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eManan, S. A., \\u0026amp; David, M. K. (2014). Mapping ecology of literacies in educational setting: The case of local mother tongues vis-\\u0026agrave;-vis Urdu and English languages in Pakistan. \\u003cem\\u003eLanguage and Education\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e28\\u003c/em\\u003e(3), 203-222.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMartin, I. P. (2018). Translanguaging in multilingual Philippine classrooms: Pedagogical possibilities. \\u003cem\\u003eAsia Pacific Journal of Education\\u003c/em\\u003e, 38(3), 403\\u0026ndash;417. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2018.1500350\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMartin, I. P. (2020). Periphery English language teaching: Myths about English in the Philippines. In \\u003cem\\u003eThe Routledge handbook of world Englishes\\u003c/em\\u003e (pp. 281-297). Routledge.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMartinez, J. C., \\u0026amp; Martin, I. P. (Eds.). (2025). \\u003cem\\u003eThe Routledge Handbook of English Language Education in the Philippines\\u003c/em\\u003e. Taylor \\u0026amp; Francis.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMart\\u0026iacute;nez, R. (2016). English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) in Brazilian higher education: challenges and opportunities. \\u003cem\\u003eEnglish in Brazil: Views, policies and programs\\u003c/em\\u003e, 191-228.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMcRae, J. (2022). \\u003cem\\u003eLiterature with a small \\u0026apos;l\\u0026apos; : Developing thinking skills in language teaching and learning\\u003c/em\\u003e. Wayzgoose Press.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMetila, R. A. (2009). Decoding the switch: The functions of codeswitching in the classroom. \\u003cem\\u003eEducation quarterly\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e67\\u003c/em\\u003e(1).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMetila, R. A., Pradilla, L. A. S., \\u0026amp; Williams, A. B. (2016). The challenge of implementing mother tongue education in linguistically diverse contexts: The case of the Philippines. \\u003cem\\u003eThe Asia-Pacific Education Researcher\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e25\\u003c/em\\u003e(5), 781-789.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eNiebres, B. D., \\u0026amp; Cabansag, J. N. (2024). Language Learning Strategies, Styles and Academic Achievement in English of Elementary Learners: Basis for Reading Program Intervention. \\u003cem\\u003eInternational Journal of Linguistics, Literature \\u0026amp; Translation\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e7\\u003c/em\\u003e(10).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eNithideechaiwarachok, B., Maneekanon, O., \\u0026amp; Bubphada, T. (2022). Exploring English language proficiency, English language problems, and English needs among first year undergraduate students. \\u003cem\\u003eInternational Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e21\\u003c/em\\u003e(12), 273-290.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eOsei-Boateng, S. (2022). \\u003cem\\u003eTeachers\\u0026rsquo; perceptions about the medium of instruction in learning English as a second or foreign language in Ghanaian lower basic schools\\u003c/em\\u003e (Master\\u0026apos;s thesis, S. Osei-Boateng).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003ePamittan, F. A. (2019). \\u003cem\\u003eThe impact of mother tongue on the performance of ESL students in listening and speaking skills embracing MTB-MLE curriculum\\u003c/em\\u003e. The Asian ESP Journal, 15(1.2), 320\\u0026ndash;343. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=q5FUTFgAAAAJ\\u0026amp;hl=en\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eParba, J. (2025). Pedagogical Perspective of Philippine. \\u003cem\\u003eEquity, Social Justice, and English Medium Instruction: Case Studies from Asia\\u003c/em\\u003e, 329.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003ePaudel, R. (2023). Multilingualism in Nepal: Challenges and Opportunities. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Tilottama\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e1\\u003c/em\\u003e(1), 100-113.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003ePhyak, P. (2013). Language ideologies and education in multilingual contexts: A critical ethnography from Nepal. \\u003cem\\u003eLinguistics and Education\\u003c/em\\u003e, 24(1), 1\\u0026ndash;11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2012.11.002\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003ePhyak, P. (2024). English-medium instruction in higher education in Nepal. In \\u003cem\\u003eThe Routledge Handbook of English-Medium Instruction in Higher Education\\u003c/em\\u003e (pp. 394-409). Routledge.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003ePhyak, P. B. (2013). Beyond the fa\\u0026ccedil;ade of language planning for Nepalese primary education: monolingual hangover, elitism and displacement of local languages?. In \\u003cem\\u003eLanguage Planning in Primary Schools in Asia\\u003c/em\\u003e (pp. 161-183). Routledge.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003ePhyak, P., \\u0026amp; Khanal, P. (2025). Modeling of Public Schools: Neoliberal Ideologies, School Gentrification, and the Erasure of Linguistic Diversity in Nepal. \\u003cem\\u003eComparative Education Review\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e69\\u003c/em\\u003e(1), 18-38.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003ePun, J., \\u0026amp; Jia, W. (2025). \\u003cem\\u003eEnglish-medium instruction in higher education in Hong Kong: Policy, research and practice in STEM classrooms\\u003c/em\\u003e. Bloomsbury Publishing.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eRengur, Z. A., Putri, P. A., Fatima, F., Mansur, N., Zulfikri, Z., Kuliahana, A., \\u0026amp; Fatimawali, F. (2025). Code-Switching in EFL Classrooms: A Tool for Comprehension or a Hindrance in Fluency. \\u003cem\\u003eDatokarama English Education Journal\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e6\\u003c/em\\u003e(1), 68-78.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eReyes, W. S., \\u0026amp; Harvey, R. M. (2018). Faculty and Student Teachers\\u0026quot; Voices\\u0026quot; in Developing a Multicultural Teacher Education Curriculum Using a Collaborative Participatory Approach. \\u003cem\\u003eThe Normal Lights\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e12\\u003c/em\\u003e(1).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eRichards, J. C., \\u0026amp; Pun, J. (2023). A typology of English-medium instruction. \\u003cem\\u003eRelc Journal\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e54\\u003c/em\\u003e(1), 216-240.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eRose, H., \\u0026amp; McKinley, J. (2018). Japan\\u0026rsquo;s English-medium instruction initiatives and the globalization of higher education. \\u003cem\\u003eHigher Education\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e75\\u003c/em\\u003e(1), 111-129.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSalomone, R. (2023). In pursuit of sustainable educational development: The Philippines and the English dilemma. In \\u003cem\\u003eLanguage and Sustainable Development\\u003c/em\\u003e (pp. 131-151). Cham: Springer International Publishing.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eShepard, C., \\u0026amp; Rose, H. (2023). English medium higher education in Hong Kong: Linguistic challenges of local and non-local students. \\u003cem\\u003eLanguage and education\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e37\\u003c/em\\u003e(6), 788-805.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSmith, O. (2025). Cultural Contexts In English Language Teaching: Balancing Global Standards With Local Relevance.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSymaco, L. P. (2017). Education, language policy and language use in the Philippines. \\u003cem\\u003eLanguage Problems and Language Planning\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e41\\u003c/em\\u003e(1), 87-102.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eTiongson, M. T. (2018). Interdisciplinary teacher collaboration for English for Specific Purposes in the Philippines. \\u003cem\\u003eUniversity of Sydney Papers in TESOL\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e13\\u003c/em\\u003e.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eTupas, R., \\u0026amp; Lorente, B. P. (2014). A \\u0026lsquo;new\\u0026rsquo; politics of language in the Philippines: Bilingual education and the new challenge of globalization. \\u003cem\\u003eLanguage and Education\\u003c/em\\u003e, 28(2), 121\\u0026ndash;140. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2013.800550\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eTupas, R., \\u0026amp; Martin, I. P. (2017). Bilingual and Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education in the Philippines. In \\u003cem\\u003eEncyclopedia of Language and Education\\u003c/em\\u003e. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02258-1_18\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eUys, M., Van Der Walt, J., Van Den Berg, R., \\u0026amp; Botha, S. (2007). English medium of instruction: A situation analysis. \\u003cem\\u003eSouth African Journal of Education\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e27\\u003c/em\\u003e(1), 69-82.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eVelasco, P. (2019). English and the politics of language in Philippine education. \\u003cem\\u003eAsian Englishes\\u003c/em\\u003e, 21(2), 180\\u0026ndash;195. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2018.1536810\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eVelasco, Y. P. (2025). The interplay between language ideologies and mother tongue-based multilingual education (MTBMLE) policy implementation in the Philippines. \\u003cem\\u003eThe Asia-Pacific Education Researcher\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e34\\u003c/em\\u003e(2), 765-775.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eWang, H. (2008). Language policy implementation: A look at teachers\\u0026rsquo; perceptions. \\u003cem\\u003eAsian EFL Journal\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e30\\u003c/em\\u003e(1), 1-38.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eWidiastuti, I. (2025). Assessing the Impact of Education Policies in Indonesia: Challenges, Achievement, and Future Direction. \\u003cem\\u003eAL-ISHLAH: Jurnal Pendidikan\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e17\\u003c/em\\u003e(2), 1955-1964.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eZeng, J., \\u0026amp; Li, X. (2023). Ideologies underlying language policy and planning in the Philippines. \\u003cem\\u003eHumanities and Social Sciences Communications\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e10\\u003c/em\\u003e(1), 1-8.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003c/ol\\u003e\"}],\"fulltextSource\":\"\",\"fullText\":\"\",\"funders\":[],\"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow\":false,\"hasManuscriptDocX\":true,\"hasOptedInToPreprint\":true,\"hasPassedJournalQc\":\"\",\"hasAnyPriority\":true,\"hideJournal\":true,\"highlight\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Southern Philippines Agribusiness and Marine and Aquatic School of Technology\",\"isAcceptedByJournal\":false,\"isAuthorSuppliedPdf\":false,\"isDeskRejected\":\"\",\"isHiddenFromSearch\":false,\"isInQc\":false,\"isInWorkflow\":false,\"isPdf\":false,\"isPdfUpToDate\":true,\"isWithdrawnOrRetracted\":false,\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"researchsquare\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"externalIdentity\":\"\",\"sideBox\":\"\",\"snPcode\":\"\",\"submissionUrl\":\"/submission\",\"title\":\"Research Square\",\"twitterHandle\":\"researchsquare\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":false,\"editorialSystem\":\"\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"\",\"inReviewEnabled\":false,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true},\"keywords\":\"Medium of instruction, state-owned education, policy–practice alignment, ideologies, management\",\"lastPublishedDoi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8492717/v1\",\"lastPublishedDoiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8492717/v1\",\"license\":{\"name\":\"CC BY 4.0\",\"url\":\"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/\"},\"manuscriptAbstract\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThis study explored the management of the Medium of Instruction (MoI) in a state-owned tertiary educational institution, using a qualitative case study approach anchored on Spolsky\\u0026rsquo;s Language Policy Framework (2004), which identifies three interrelated components of language policy: practices, beliefs or ideologies, and management. Ten participants were involved, comprising five faculty members from different academic institutes and five students from various courses. Findings revealed that faculty members demonstrated multilingual flexibility by blending English, Filipino, and Cebuano to enhance comprehension and inclusivity, even when institutional policy prescribed English-only instruction. Teachers employed strategies such as code-switching, translation, simplification, and visual aids to make lessons more accessible, particularly in technical or abstract subjects. This adaptability reflected both a commitment to student learning and responsiveness to diverse linguistic backgrounds. However, results also highlighted a clear misalignment between policy and practice, as rigid institutional mandates often failed to account for classroom realities, leaving educators to negotiate between compliance and student needs. While some faculty refined their approaches through experience and student feedback, others benefited from professional development programs that introduced inclusive strategies such as translanguaging and scaffolding. Despite these efforts, challenges persisted due to curriculum constraints, ideological divides, and limited institutional support, with some teachers expressing uncertainty or lack of awareness about how to implement the MoI policy effectively. Overall, faculty practices underscored resourcefulness and values-driven pedagogy, ensuring that language served as a bridge to understanding rather than a barrier to participation.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"manuscriptTitle\":\"Medium of Instruction in a State-Owned Education Institution: Policy–Practice Alignment, Ideologies, and Management\",\"msid\":\"\",\"msnumber\":\"\",\"nonDraftVersions\":[{\"code\":1,\"date\":\"2026-01-07 10:48:06\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8492717/v1\",\"editorialEvents\":[{\"type\":\"communityComments\",\"content\":0}],\"status\":\"published\",\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"researchsquare\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"externalIdentity\":\"\",\"sideBox\":\"\",\"snPcode\":\"\",\"submissionUrl\":\"/submission\",\"title\":\"Research Square\",\"twitterHandle\":\"researchsquare\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":false,\"editorialSystem\":\"\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"\",\"inReviewEnabled\":false,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true}}],\"origin\":\"\",\"ownerIdentity\":\"4a3840d1-387d-4722-910f-9c3f60bf6930\",\"owner\":[],\"postedDate\":\"January 7th, 2026\",\"published\":true,\"recentEditorialEvents\":[],\"rejectedJournal\":[],\"revision\":\"\",\"amendment\":\"\",\"status\":\"posted\",\"subjectAreas\":[{\"id\":60735446,\"name\":\"Educational Philosophy and Theory\"},{\"id\":60735447,\"name\":\"Linguistics\"}],\"tags\":[],\"updatedAt\":\"2026-01-07T10:48:06+00:00\",\"versionOfRecord\":[],\"versionCreatedAt\":\"2026-01-07 10:48:06\",\"video\":\"\",\"vorDoi\":\"\",\"vorDoiUrl\":\"\",\"workflowStages\":[]},\"version\":\"v1\",\"identity\":\"rs-8492717\",\"journalConfig\":\"researchsquare\"},\"__N_SSP\":true},\"page\":\"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]\",\"query\":{\"redirect\":\"/article/rs-8492717\",\"identity\":\"rs-8492717\",\"version\":[\"v1\"]},\"buildId\":\"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd\",\"isFallback\":false,\"isExperimentalCompile\":false,\"dynamicIds\":[84888],\"gssp\":true,\"scriptLoader\":[]}","source_license":"CC-BY-4.0","license_restricted":false}