“<i>The moment I realized I am plurilingual</i>”: Plurilingual tasks for creative representations in EAP at a Canadian university
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In many urban settings across the globe, English for Academic Purposes (EAP) classes are inherently multilingual and provide unique possibilities to explore a wealth of languages and cultures as well as the interactions among them. Although the field of applied linguistics has historically followed monolingual ideologies, a plurilingual approach in EAP can provide insights into language practices that are situated, creative and contextualized. Raising students’ awareness of their own plurilingual and pluricultural repertoire is key to preparing them to make mindful decisions about culture and language use in real-life situations; plurilingual instruction incudestranslanguaging, validating plurilingual identities, as well as understandingpluriculturalism, all of which can open up possibilities for creativity in culture and language use. While research shows plurilingual-inspired pedagogies can benefit language learning, little is known about the extent to which they can enhance creative representations of language and culture. This article reports results from a study on the effects of plurilingual instruction on creativity in an EAP program. Seven EAP instructors delivered plurilingual tasks to adult students at a Canadian university. Data from demographic questionnaires,Language Portraits, student diaries (N=28), and classroom observations (N=21) were qualitatively analyzed and triangulated. Results suggest that the use of plurilingual tasks afforded a heightened awareness of plurilingual/pluricultural identity and validated the creative use of linguistic and cultural resources, including translanguaging. Suggestions for the inclusion of creative data collection instruments and plurilingual instruction in applied linguistics classroom research are made.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".