Teachers’ ideological dilemmas: lessons learned from a Language Introduction Program in Sweden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this qualitative study, we draw on theory and practice in relation to the concepts of fixity and fluidity in language education (i.e. the simultaneity of bounded, named languages; and the need to transcend language boundaries). We use data from focus group interviews to investigate the entangled ideological dilemmas facing four teachers in a Language Introduction Programme in an upper secondary school in Sweden, as they enacted literacy pedagogies (fluidity) against the backdrop of high stakes standardised tests, age-out limits, and residency criteria (fixity) for youth from refugee backgrounds. We asked: What ideological dilemmas do language teachers in an introductory programme perceive relative to the language needs of youth from refugee backgrounds as they strive to implement promising practices? Our thematic analysis revealed three dilemmatic themes concerning ‘what’ to teach, ‘what’ resource materials to use, and ‘how’ to implement literacy pedagogies. From the lessons learned in our findings, we conclude with six thoughts for future consideration as teachers attempt to reconcile seemingly disparate perspectives on language teaching and learning in their local contexts.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".