Exploring the Intersection Between Culturally Responsive Pedagogy and Academic Integrity Among EAL Students in Canadian Higher Education
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we examine selected literature on the implementation of culturally responsive pedagogy in higher education with regard to academic integrity among international students who speak English as an Additional Language (EAL). The question that guided this work was: How can Canadian post-secondary educators demonstrate culturally sensitive responses to plagiarism for international EAL students? Within this examination we used Sleeter’s (2011) critique of culturally responsive pedagogy as a framework to deepen our reflection of how to address plagiarism issues among the EAL population. We related each of Sleeter’s four observances of oversimplification to the notion of plagiarism and its prevention, to contextualize and connect the notion of culturally responsive pedagogy to academic integrity. Using the research literature to ground our recommendations, we conclude with strategies for instructors to support culturally responsive ways of addressing plagiarism with international EAL higher education students.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it