<i>Who needs tildes anyways?</i> : a decolonial analysis of student engagement in translanguaging practices and pedagogies
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
Employing translanguaging as a decolonial tool, this paper examines students’ translanguaging practices and their engagement with or resistance to translanguaging pedagogies. Specifically, this paper examines students’ translanguaging practices at Colegio Colombiano (CC), an international bilingual school in Colombia, and how students respond to the introduction of translanguaging pedagogies in their English classes. The guiding research question was: How do students engage in and make sense of translanguaging practices and pedagogies? Using qualitative data from classroom observations and focus group interviews, thematic analysis revealed elementary students were largely receptive to translanguaging pedagogies, while middle and high school students often resisted them despite engaging in translanguaging on their own terms. While older students indicated translanguaging pedagogies placed an unnecessary focus on their academic Spanish skills, a closer analysis revealed students’ complex resistance to and internalization of colonialist language ideologies and practices. This study provides a decolonial analysis of students’ engagement in translanguaging, highlighting the complexities of older students’ experiences. The article concludes with implications for a nuanced understanding and enactment of translanguaging, calling for international schools to actively challenge colonialist ideologies, make space for diverse linguistic identities and practices, and consider contextualizing, rather than borrowing, translanguaging pedagogies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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