Collaboration, Empowerment, Education, and Action: Kazakhstan's Teachers’ Creative Maladjustment in Utilizing Translanguaging as a Pedagogical Strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The four concepts that form the first tier of the title of this article—collaboration, empowerment, education, and action—are four crucial tenets of participatory action research (PAR). Over the past three decades, efforts to enhance English teaching as a foreign language have expanded significantly in Kazakhstan, as the government has advocated for English proficiency to improve the country's global competitiveness. Kazakhstan's Ministry of Education and Science regulations require teachers to teach English as the sole language of instruction. However, most English teachers in Kazakhstan, instead of adhering to the rule of teaching English monolingually, employ creative maladjustment and subversion by using their discretion to shift between languages during English lessons. This study aims to explore teachers’ practices of creative maladjustment and creative subversion and to utilize participatory action research (PAR) to empower teachers to set priorities for using translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy in teaching English as a foreign language (EFL). The findings indicated that teachers have practiced creative maladjustment and creative subversion in their teaching practices; they do not obey the Ministry's monolingual regulation and have been shifting between languages when teaching English, utilizing a translingual approach. Since teachers indicated empowerment in utilizing translanguaging as a pedagogical strategy in their classrooms, there is no going back to the obsolete practice of monolingual teaching. We recommend that the government rescind the rule of teaching English monolingually and institute professional development strategies that will introduce and develop translingual art-based procedures for teaching and learning English in Kazakhstan.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".