The medium of instruction in Ethiopian Higher Education Institutions: Kotebe Metropolitan University Case study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this article is to examine the medium of instruction in Ethiopian higher education institutions and the perceived consequences of the failure to learn a lingua franca. The study was qualitative and it used interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs). Five teachers and five students took part in the interviews and six teachers and six students participated in the FGDs. The findings of the study showed that the role of Amharic as a working language has not been given recognition despite the fact that Amharic was constitutionally granted to be a working language. Due to language barriers, students who are speakers of Oromipha and other languages from the Eastern and Western parts of Ethiopia suffer passivity in the classroom because they do not speak Amharic although Amharic has been taught as a subject in all regional states of the country. Increased identity politics seems to have generated a negative attitude towards Amharic, Ethiopia's former official lingua franca. Non-Amharic native speakers appeared to lose interest in learning Amharic while they were in primary and secondary schools. The absence of an official, common language which could be used for wider communication in higher education has resulted in having challenges among the student population.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".