Teachers’ Awareness and Management of the Social, Cultural, and Political Indexicalities of Translanguaging
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
Translanguaging scholars have debated whether dismantling boundaries between “named” languages is necessary for social justice in education. To explore this issue, we examined teachers’ reported use of named languages or translanguaging in classroom activities. We used a survey as an interview protocol to compare the extent to which four primary teachers in different international settings implemented two types of bi/multilingual practices with a recently taught class: translanguaging to learn without regard for boundaries between named languages, and symbolic valuation of students’ (named) home languages and languages of affiliation. Using the sociolinguistic construct of “indexicality” as a lens of analysis, we found that only sometimes do teachers describe attaching positive indexicalities (social, cultural, or political meanings) to dynamic translanguaging or to named languages, and only sometimes are these indexicalities egalitarian—suggesting that the answer to the debate lies in positionings teachers create while marshalling translanguaging or named languages to manage classroom identities.
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