Plurilingual Pedagogical Practices in a Policy‐Constrained Context: A Northern Ugandan Case Study
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
Uganda is a linguistically diverse nation where plurilingualism is common. Its language education policy dictates that, except in large urban areas, one local language be selected as the medium of instruction (MoI), to Primary 3, transitioning to English MoI, in Primary 4. Yet, as Ramanathan and Morgan ( ) argue, “the practice of policy encourages us, as researchers and teachers, to read between and behind the lines (cf. Cooke, ), to interpret the ambiguities and gaps … that open up moments and spaces for transformative pedagogical interventions” (p. 448). The purpose of this study, conducted in Uganda with five Primary 4 teachers and their coordinator, was to explore such possibilities. It asks: How do subject‐area primary teachers in northern Uganda use local linguistic and multimodal cultural resources as plurilingual pedagogical tools to enhance students' learning in English MoI/ TESOL classrooms? What are the challenges and constraints in employing locally available linguistic and multimodal cultural resources to become plurilingual pedagogical tools in English MoI/ TESOL primary school classrooms? Three themes emerged: the teachers' exploratory plurilingual practices, students as plurilingual peer tutors, and integrated multimodal and plurilingual instruction. Challenges related to the larger educational cultural context and to local school and classroom conditions are also discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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