Discourse Itineraries in an EAP Classroom: A Collaborative Critical Literacy Praxis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This classroom ethnography documents the developing critical literacy pedagogy of an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) instructor over the course of several terms. My research, which involved extensive collaboration with the EAP instructor, explores how specific classroom practices and discourses are enacted and mediated through dialogic intertextualities, material objects, and social actions that frame representations about language, literacy, and what Lefebvre (1988) called âle quotidienâ â the everyday, and how these affect the studentsâ meaning-making potential in specific ways. It also traces the contours (and detours) of the instructorâs classroom practices after the researcherâs mediation in the form of collaborative inquiries on functional grammar and critical literacy, and the effects of these classroom practices on making meaning in her EAP classes.\nI consider several issues from an integrated theory and practice perspective. Because of an urgent need to understand the studentsâ practices and epistemologies as they engage in ever newer forms of multimodal text productions, I contend that EAP classroom practices must be reshaped to facilitate more (inter)active engagements of the multimodal texts that saturate studentsâ lives, both inside the class and outside. Related to this, I highlight in my classroom data what actually counts as the âcriticalâ or the âuncriticalâ in this EAP classroom and argue why these distinctions matter. Lastly, I suggest ways in which the role of a critical multiliteracies education in EAP can meet the pragmatic needs of both students and teachers. My research contributes to a much-needed dialogue between critically oriented researchers and practitioners in the field of TESOL/Applied Linguistics by bridging the gap between theory and practice. The lessons learned from this collaborative classroom praxis point to concrete ways to help EAP teachers and students utilize their meaning-making potential. This involves equipping them with an expanded social semiotic tool-kit that can enable them to not only meet their immediate academic needs, but also help create a more active and possibly transformative role in the social constructions of discourse, language, and society. This doctoral dissertation has implications for those who are involved in EAP teaching and research, curriculum planning, teacher training, and student needs assessment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".