MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091621140 · doi:10.1002/tesq.216

Addressing Racialized Multicultural Discourses in an EAP Textbook: Working Toward a Critical Pedagogies Approach

2014· article· en· W2091621140 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTESOL Quarterly · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOntario Council on Graduate Studies, Council of Ontario Universities
KeywordsSociologyDialogical selfMulticulturalismPedagogyConversationEnglish for academic purposesContext (archaeology)Reading (process)PsychologyLinguisticsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Racialized multicultural discourses emerge in the TESOL classroom via textbook representations of immigrant success stories and perceived racial and cultural differences among students. Although liberal multicultural discourses may be well intentioned, these discourses warrant closer examination for the ways in which they can essentialize cultural identities and enact power dynamics of who is defining and who is being defined. Drawing on an ethnographic English for academic purposes (EAP) classroom case study, and with the aim of bridging the gap between critical theories and actual classroom practices, this article explores the approaches an instructor implemented with students in addressing such discourses in an EAP textbook chapter. The article first presents the chapter's passages and then describes how the discourses were initially taken up by the participants. A conversation between the instructor and the author in which the instructor shared a racializing experience is then featured, providing the context for her subsequent approach in which she revisited the reading with students. The author examines the classroom interactions with two questions in mind: How did the instructor's critical pedagogies approach work to mediate the racialized representations in the chapter? Did this approach facilitate more meaningful dialogical engagements enabling the students to develop their academic literacies?

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.296
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it