What Are the Factors Affecting the Use of English Language in English-only Classrooms: Student’s Perspectives in Pakistan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English as a medium of instruction and communication is becoming a central pedagogy in various countries in the world. In Pakistan, most of the advanced academic institutions use English as their medium of instruction, however students and teachers have been observed communicating in their first languages, especially Urdu, in the classrooms. This study was conducted at the Institute of Communication and Cultural Studies, University of Management and Technology, to examine the factors that limit students and teachers from communicating in English. Qualitative research methods were employed to find the factors affecting the use of English in English-only classrooms. A total of 130 participants were included in this study. Among them, 68 participants were engaged in student questionnaires. The participants were students of four native languages (Urdu, Punjabi, Siraiki and Pushto) with different level of English language proficiency. Required literature search was performed using key databases and journals, related to applied linguistics, English language and education. Our results demonstrated that most of the students like to communicate in English and be a part of the English-only environment, however they acknowledged some key factors that prevented them from speaking English in the classrooms. Fundamental factors included linguistics, individual, social, psychological and institutional which were largely based upon their beliefs, assumptions, needs and desires. This study may provide insights to the policymakers to work on issues related to communications and medium of instructions in Pakistan. It may also help teachers and educators to understand the underlying factors that compel students to speak their first languages instead of English.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".