Literacy Engagement in Multilingual and Multicultural Learning Spaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents qualitative findings from a larger design-based research doctoral study in which I examined the impact of a curricular innovation to challenge the monolingual and monocultural norms of literacy practices and to be responsive to the linguistic and cultural landscape of 21st century classrooms. I collaborated with 11 university preservice teachers and 28 English language learners (ELLs) in Grades 2 and 3 to design and implement a literacy intervention, called the Name Jar Project, focused on cultivating literacy engagement. I used constant comparison analysis to analyze data sources, which included field notes, student artifacts, and preservice teachers’ reflections. This article documents the positive impact of the intervention in supporting the students’ linguistic and cultural needs, affirming their identities, and bolstering their vocabulary development. Cet article présente les constatations qualitatives d’une étude de recherche de doctorat plus importante conforme au modèle méthodologique de recherche-design (design-based research, ou DBR) dans laquelle j’ai examiné l’impact d’une innovation pédagogique conçue pour remettre en cause les normes unilingues et uniculturelles des pratiques de littératie et pour permettre à l’enseignement de s’adapter au paysage linguistique et culturel des salles de classe du 21e siècle. J’ai collaboré avec 11 enseignantes et enseignants universitaires en formation et 28 apprenantes et apprenants de la langue anglaise (English language learners,ou ELLs) de 2e et 3e année afin de concevoir et de mettre en œuvre une intervention en matière de litératie, baptisée Name Jar Project, centrée sur une émarche favorable à la culture de la littératie. J’ai constamment eu recours à des techniques d’analyse comparative pour analyser les sources de données, lesquelles comprenaient des notes, des artefacts associés au prénom de chaque élève et des réflexions d’enseignantes et enseignants en formation. Cet article documente l’impact positif de l’intervention sur la réponse aux besoins linguistiques et culturels des élèves, l’affirmation de leur identité et la stimulation du développement de leur vocabulaire.
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 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".