Spokes in the Wheels of CLIL for Multilingualism or How Monolingual Ideologies Limit Teacher Training
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
In line with van Kampen et al.’s (2018) research about specialist and practitioner perceptions on the goals for CLIL in the Netherlands, the present study addresses Hüttner, Dalton-Puffer and Smit’s (2013) call for investigating teachers’ beliefs about CLIL in European countries like Spain where this teaching approach is highly institutionalized. Unlike the aforementioned studies, though, ours focuses on novice subject teachers in Primary education. More specifically, it links teacher cognition and pre-service or initial teacher training with the aim of exploring the extent to which student teachers’ beliefs mediate their education. The analysis of how these student teachers understand the aims and language principles of CLIL unveils the role that a set of monolingual ideologies (e.g. “the English only policy”) play in the conceptualization and consequent acceptance or disapproval of this teaching approach. As we also pay heed to the impact of tertiary instruction on participants’ beliefs, implications for CLIL teacher preparation programmes are 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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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