Pilot Collaboration And Program Development: Engineering Senior Design And Spanish For Cross Disciplinary Literacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Pilot Collaboration and Program Development: Engineering Senior Design and Spanish for Cross- Disciplinary Literacy Introduction Modern language scholars have begun in recent years to challenge educators to develop a framework for language that, as noted by Heidi Byrnes in the Association of Departments of Foreign Language Bulletin, “intimately relates knowing [the language] to diverse ways of knowing” (Byrnes, 11). [1] In proposing literacy as a framework for advanced second language acquisition, Byrnes also challenges language educators to link educational decisions to societal demands and to educate young people for the “undisputed complexity of human meaning making in and through language.” (14). As Byrnes makes clear, moving toward a socio-culturally grounded, genre-based literacy “locates language use in the context of social practice and meaning-making across disciplinary boundaries” (13). Language proficiency efforts, intercultural communication competencies, and service learning initiatives have all combined to foster a new praxis of language use that allows for a more critical rethinking of disciplinary boundaries, beyond the purely verbal or grammatical, and toward more transformational cultural and intercultural literacies. Within this theoretical framework, the pedagogical experiment we describe here is an example of an educational praxis that may point beyond language learning per se, toward the acquisition of other ways of knowing and learning. The purpose of this study is a) to present a workable example of cross-disciplinary literacy-based language acquisition pedagogy for intermediate to advanced students of language within the context of a technological university, and b) to describe a unique pilot collaboration undertaken at Michigan Technological University in spring 2006 between students enrolled in Civil and Environmental Engineering International Senior Design and Humanities’ Spanish for Special Literacies. Through the framework of technical and cultural translation, students engaged in the practice of professional communication and heightened their awareness of the socio-cultural context in which all communication, including engineering communication, is embedded. Background When we first described our modern language efforts at curriculum design within the specific context of Michigan Technological University (The Canadian Modern Language Review) [2], the position of the Modern Language Program within our Department of Humanities was viewed as ambivalent or marginal because the science
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.008 |
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".