Huo, X. (2020). Higher Education Internationalization and English Language Instruction: Intersectionality of Race and Language in Canadian Universities. Cham: Springer International Publishing AG.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Xiangying Huo's monograph, Higher Education Internationalization and English Language Instruction: Intersectionality of Race and Language in Canadian Universities, tells a thought-provoking story of a non-native English-speaking instructor's experiences working at a Canadian higher institution's writing centre.By unfolding the "inner" voices of the author's autoethnographic accounts and "outer" voices of interview data conducted with six students, this book reflects the ideological link between the English language and the white race rooted in the history of European colonization (Rosa & Flores, 2017) and unmasks how nonnative English-speaking instructors are deprived of legitimacy to work in English language education in postcolonial Canada.Following a traditional dissertation format, Huo's book offers a detailed description of the following content: (1) a conceptual framework that combines Bourdieu's (1991) theorization of cultural capital and Critical Race Theory (CRT) (Crenshaw et al., 1995), (2) a literature review that underlines pivotal issues in World Englishes (WE) and teaching English as an International Language (EIL), (3) a methodological illustration of autoethnography supplemented by qualitative interviews and fieldnotes, and (4) findings and discussion that aim to stimulate more equitable practices in English language education.This book may benefit a wide range of reader groups, including educational researchers, policy makers, English instructors, and curriculum developers, for it exposes structural barriers facing non-native English-speaking instructors and provokes critical awareness and pedagogical contemplation to decolonize English language education in Canada.The conceptual framework (Chapter 2) incorporating cultural capital and CRT provides a sound foundation for an in-depth analysis of the relationship between language and race in English education.Importantly, Huo points out how racial affiliations and linguistic repertoires can be seen as different forms of cultural capital that are endowed with differential levels of market value in the social fields in which they lay claim (see also Carrington & Luke, 1997).By highlighting the fundamental issues of legitimacy, power, social stratification, and identity shared by the two theoretical constructs, Huo successfully implements both in the dissection of her teaching experiences in postcolonial and post-secondary English programs.Furthermore, Huo gives a systematic literature review on WE and teaching EIL (Chapters 3 and 4), offering multiple angles for book readers to approach crucial topics such as native-speakerism, linguistic imperialism, ideology of standard English, and multifaceted challenges (e.g., linguistic, sociopolitical, and occupational) confronting non-native English-speaking instructors in EIL.Additionally, the methodological demonstration (Chapter 5) aids readers to contextualize research sites in which the study was conducted, connect research questions to data collecting strategies (i.e., reflective journals, autobiographic interviews, and fieldnotes), and better understand the author's and other participants' positions in this autoethnographic project.Findings of the study enunciate two types of voices.The outer voices (data collected through interviews) first present six selected students' socio-historical locations in Canadian society (i.e., familial background, sociocultural and sociopolitical identities) and then investigate their perceptions of the role of
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,036 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».