ESL Parents and Teachers: Towards Dialogue?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Conflict and miscommunication between English as a Second Language (ESL) parents and teachers has had a major impact on educational policy, but few empirical studies examine it as discourse. This study examines communication between ESL parents and high school ESL teachers in a 'Parents' Night' (PN) event organised to increase understanding of the ESL programme. It examines an intercultural communication view and a 'dialogue across differences' view, using a more comprehensive systemic functional linguistics view to describe the discourse of the event and locate it in its contexts. It explores explanations for a conflict that occurred, draws implications about the role of each view and considers prospects for the future development of ESL parent–teacher communication. Keywords: ESL educationESL parent–teacher intercultural communicationparents' nightsystemic functional linguisticsdialogue across differencespractical reasoning Notes 1. Most of the parents involved are recent Chinese immigrants who are unhappy with the work their children are doing in Vancouver and Richmond public schools. These parents asked for 'teacher-led instruction, a homework policy, dress code or uniform, regular study and conduct reports, frequent meetings between parents and teachers, and additional extra-curricular activities' (CitationSullivan, 1998: 15A). 2. This is not to say that the Chinese are a homogeneous cultural group. In fact, there are significant differences in the political, economic, social and educational systems between China, Hong Kong and Taiwan, thus caution in generalisations about Chinese parents is needed. 3. The survey questions included 'What language would you like the presentation to be in?' 'What could we do to help you understand our programme?' 'In what ways can we assist your child more?' 'What should we do differently?' 4. The parents did not give consent to the audio recording, but allowed me and the bilingual assistants to take notes while we telephoned them. I attempted to conduct formal face-to-face interviews with the parents but they did not wish to be interviewed, which was not unexpected. As part of a research team studying ESL students, teachers and parents, I had realised that direct access to parents was protectdifficult.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it