Bridging or Dividing? Chinese Language Integration and the Resilience of ELT in Saudi Higher Education under Vision 2030: Policy Symbolism vs. Pedagogical Realities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Saudi Arabia has pledged to attract international investments as part of its Vision 2030 policy, one that seeks to diversify the education and economic environment of the country, especially by enhancing alliances with China. In support of this objective, some higher education institutions have established or initiated the teaching of the Chinese language within English-dominant educational environments, in addition to the currently taught English Language courses. This paper examines the implementation of Chinese in ELT practices in Saudi Arabia, focusing on the deployment of institutional methodologies, stakeholder viewpoints, and the ideological consequences of the policy-based multilingual curriculum revolution. The study employs a multiple-case design that is based on language policy and planning (Ricento, 2006) and translingual pedagogies (Garcia & Wei, 2014). It relies on semi-structured interviews and responses to these interviews by key stakeholders of the case, as well as analysis of institutional documents and a faculty, administrative, and student survey. Insights indicate an ongoing antagonism between English as a linguistic capital of dominance (Bourdieu, 1991) and the novel valorisation of Chinese as a diplomatic language of the state. The research offers critical perspectives on how Saudi higher education navigates the linguistic pluralism of Vision 2030's framework and suggests implications for multilingual curriculum design, trainer preparation, and language policy implementation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".