Bilingualism as the Medium of Educational Instruction: An Exploratory Study of Student and Teachers’ Views in Lebanon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bilingualism as the medium of educational instruction in institutions has led to much controversy. The challenge, however, for policy makers is to address the issue of what languages are to be the medium of instruction and the place of the home and minority languages in EFL contexts as English becomes the lingua franca worldwide. Further, research has shown that bilingual students when compared to monolingual students perform better in academic institutions as they have developed higher cognitive skills required for learning. Although bilingualism as the medium of instruction has been researched and has become more common in institutions worldwide, it is under researched in L1 Arabic contexts especially in the Lebanese multilingual/cultural context from the student and teachers’ point of view. This paper reports on an exploratory survey study of student and teachers’ preferences in one English medium institution in Lebanon as to what language(s) they prefer to study in at both the pre and university levels. Main findings indicate that both students and teachers show a high preference for bilingualism as the medium of instruction at both the pre and university levels with English the priority medium. Implications and recommendations for future research are made.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".