Monetary and Career based Motives at the Core of EFL Programs: Problems and Solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we discuss the dominant discourses that use monetary and careerbased reasons to justify the learning and teaching of English in Costa Rica by drawing parallels to similar phenomena taking place in Japan, Korea, Canada, and Colombia. We argue that the propagation of these discourses has resulted inthe commodification of EFL teaching and learning in Costa Rica, as programs are designed to meet narrow material-based interests and purposes. The reflection includes an analysis of publicity around EFL learning, a national initiative to improve EFL teaching/learning, a specific EFL program in a public Costa Ricanuniversity, and the opinions of students from this program. We demonstrate how the construction of English as the means by which professionalism, economic growth, and wealth can be accomplished has shaped EFL curricula in particular ways, thereby neglecting diverse motivations for EFL learning. We finish the paper by advocating for the creation of more democratic spaces in EFL classrooms where both teachers and learners can critique in constructive ways the impact that these dominant discourses have on themselves as individuals and on EFL curricular at large.
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 | 0.023 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".