MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977915651 · doi:10.5539/ies.v7n13p197

Upholding the Malay Language and Strengthening the English Language Policy: An Education Reform

2014· article· en· W1977915651 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hamidah Yamat, Nur Farita Mustapa Umar, Muhammad Ilyas Mahmood

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalayBlueprintLanguage policyBilingual educationPolitical scienceLanguage assessmentLanguage planningLanguage educationPedagogyMathematics educationSociologyPsychologyLinguisticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today’s global economy and dependency on technology has led to educational reforms in Malaysia, which includes language policies; namely the Upholding the Malay Language, and Strengthening the English Language (MBMMBI) policy. This policy underpins the project presented and discussed in this paper; on the development of a bilingual education and assessment framework for higher education providers (HEP). This paper discusses the analysis of documents on the language planning and its implementation policies at three HEPs; namely Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Universtiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) and Universiti Kuala Lumpur (UniKL) as well as the Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-2025. Findings of the comparative analysis indicate that each university interprets bilingual policy differently thus implement it differently which in return resulted in different language abilities among their graduates. This also implies the vital need for a clear framework on bilingual education as well as its assessment in order for the education reform to be successful in its aim to strengthen the English language competency and at the same time uphold the Malay language among its nation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.441 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicMultilingual Education and PolicyFrench-language works237,207