Telling Stories of Violence in Adult ESL Classrooms: Disrupting Safe Spaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article develops a complex understanding of safe space in relation to adult refugee learners’ oral literacy practice of telling stories of violent life experiences in English as a second language (ESL) classrooms. A rhizoanalytic approach brings theoretical and empirical elements into conversation to ask two questions. Can the exigencies of safe classroom spaces accommodate the telling/hearing of violent stories? What might be the pedagogical potential of such storytelling in ESL classrooms? Grounded in literature critiquing safe space discourses and theoretical work that views the telling of violent stories as ambivalent (destructive and productive), I argue that unproblematic conceptualizations of safe classrooms become impossible when refugees are involved. I present a data assemblage drawn from a qualitative study with two ESL teachers and four students. In a series of interview vignettes, the students describe their experiences of hearing their classmates’ stories of violence, highlighting the emotional impact of these experiences and their capacity to bring on new ways of thinking. This analysis reframes refugee storytellers as powerful, agentive forces in the ESL classroom and suggests that sharing stories is pedagogical in the sense that it affects and transforms learners. In closing, I discuss the practical and ethical implications of the research. Cet article développe une interprétation complexe du concept d’espace sûr relatif à une pratique li éraire orale selon laquelle des réfugiés adultes racontent des expériences de vie violentes dans leurs cours d’anglais langue seconde (ALS). Une approche « rhizoanalytique » réunit en conversation des éléments théoriques et empiriques pour poser deux questions: 1- Est-il possible de raconter et d’écouter des récits violents tout en respectant les exigences liées aux espaces surs en classe? et 2- Quel pourrait être le potentiel pédagogique de ces récits dans les cours d’ALS? Puisant dans la recherche qui critique le discours relatif aux espaces surs et dans le travail théorique qui perçoit comme ambivalent (destructif et productif) le fait de raconter des histoires violentes, j’affirme qu’il n’est pas possible de concevoir des espaces surs en classe qui ne posent aucun problème lorsque les élèves sont des réfugiés. Je présente des données tirées d’une étude qualitative impliquant deux enseignants d’ALS et quatre élèves. Par le biais d’une série de capsules d’entrevues, les élèves décrivent ce qu’ils ressentent en écoutant les récits de violence que racontent leurs camarades de classe et soulignent l’impact émotionnel de ces expériences et leur capacité d’entrainer de nouveaux modes de réflexion. Cette analyse restructure les conteurs réfugiés comme des forces puissantes et capables dans les cours d’ALS et propose que le partage de récits est pédagogique dans le sens qu’il exerce une influence sur les apprenants et les transforme. Je discute des conséquences pratiques et éthiques de cette recherche.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".