Adult composition instruction in a northern native community : a case study of cultural and ideological resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis reports an interpretive case study of adult composition instruction in a native community in northern Canada. Although the existing literature contains much theory about literacy and cross-cultural relations, little research has examined particular contexts of writing instruction, especially for native populations. The present research focused on students' responses to specific approaches to composition, using participant-observation by the author and an emergent research design which considered classroom events in relation to the local community and its history. The study found much behaviour by the students which was described as resistance to the instruction, behaviours which were consonant with details of the community context. Interpretations of these student behaviours were first made in reference to theories of cross-cultural differences, which proved to be less satisfactory to account for them than theories which would characterize the behaviours as ideologically-based. The thesis suggests that possible explanations for this specific population's lack of success and nonparticipation in literacy education would be too narrowly defined as cross-cultural differences. Understanding both the cultural and ideological foundations of resistance behaviour may help to guide literacy pedagogy in northern native adult instruction.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".