English for University Administrative Work: English Officialization Policy and Foreign Language Learning Motivation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines how the English officialization policy of higher education in an EFL context interplays with administrative workers’ motivational orientations towards English learning. The data consisted of questionnaire responses of 117 administrative members with undergraduate degrees and qualitative interviews with 9 who answered the questionnaires. The descriptive and correlation analyses showed that the participants interested in learning English-speaking countries’ cultures did not perceive much benefit of the English officialization policy (EOP) in increasing their motivation to learn English. On the contrary, those who appreciated the EOP tended to be motivated to learn English for external rewards. A striking finding was that those who related the EOP to increased motivation also showed a lack of motivation to learn English. Also noteworthy was that their motivation correlated significantly with their own perceived English speaking competence. The results corroborate the significant role of the perception of English speaking competence and the context of English use in language learning motivation at the post-tertiary level. The participants expressed feelings of confusion regarding the role of English in everyday work performance. The implications of these findings are discussed with a view toward the enhanced implementation of EOP policy in an EFL context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".