Language Policy, Language Teachers' Beliefs, and Classroom Practices
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
The widespread use of a local variety of English, Singapore Colloquial English, or Singlish, has become somewhat of a controversial issue in Singapore especially in the eyes of the Singapore government. For example, in 2002 the Singapore government launched The ‘Speak Good English Movement’ (SGEM) with the objective of promoting the use of Standard English among Singaporeans. Furthermore, Singapore's newspapers have recently suggested that the responsibility for halting the deterioration (perceived or real) of the standards of English rests with Singapore's English language teachers. The case study presented in this paper offers one lens from which to view a policy-to-practice connection by outlining the impact of language policy on the beliefs and classroom practices of three primary school teachers concerning the use of Singlish in their classrooms. The results confirm those of previous studies that teachers’ reactions to language policy is not a straightforward process and as such it is important to understand the role teachers play in the enactment of language policy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| 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