Contextualizing Teachers and Learners’ Perception of Translanguaging Practices in ESP Classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of the monolingual method in the teaching and learning process has drawn a lot of criticism from education professionals as well as language learners, in line with the growing use of translanguaging in language learning. Translanguaging allows users to use their linguistic resources as a new paradigm for utilising more than one language when learning a foreign language. The current study examined how English for Specific Purpose (ESP) teachers and students utilised and interpreted translanguaging in healthcare learning contexts. This study used a mixed research method using the instruments of observation, semi-structured interviews, and questionnaires, involving 150 nursing students and 5 ESP lecturers as the study participants. The study revealed that nursing students generally have a positive attitude towards translanguaging practice in ESP classes. The five ESP teachers are aware of the efficacy of translanguaging for content instruction to improve comprehension, foster solidarity in the classroom, and produce better learning outcomes, especially for those with lower ESP language proficiency. Most teachers also call for the continuation of the translanguaging philosophy and practice by supporting language policies that relate to its use in ESP learning. This paper also confers the insinuations of the study's findings concerning the requirement for contextualised translanguaging implementation and system construction. It is advised that the use of translanguaging by multilingual learners in ESP learning should be seen by instructors and students from a wider viewpoint.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".