Culturally appropriate pedagogy in a bilingual family literacy programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Researchers have documented bilingual family literacy programmes in terms of their structure and programming as well as their effect on children's language and literacy development and parents' ability to support such development within the home. What is missing from the discussion is a description of how facilitators mediate understanding within the programme. The purpose of this article is to describe how facilitators working with Karen and Iranian families mediated parents' understanding of the key concepts within the parent‐only segment of a bilingual family literacy programme for immigrant and refugee families in western Canada. Drawing principally from observational field notes at two sites of the programme, we describe the activities and instruction that took place during the introduction to the session,Rhythm, Raps and Rhymes. Supporting data were drawn from a larger 3‐year study. Our findings indicate that the facilitators at both sites mediated the parents' understanding of the benefits of rhythm and rhyme to early literacy by using culturally familiar and relevant content delivered in both the first language of the community and in English, and by drawing from culturally familiar pedagogical practices. Results of this study have implications for the delivery of family literacy programmes within culturally diverse communities.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".