Biliteracy Learners’ Enacted Agency in Digital Storytelling: Creativity in a Cross-Border, Online, Emergent, Biliteracy Curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research investigated potentials of bilingual digital story-making for engaging creativity in Canadian biliteracy learners (i.e., learners in Canada who speak their heritage language of Mandarin but are more fluent in English) and Chinese biliteracy learners (i.e., learners in China who are fluent in Mandarin and learning English as a foreign language). Informed by asset-oriented multiliteracies, new media literacies and new materialism, this research adopted an ethnography methodology to explore the communal and socio-material practices embedded in the intra-actions of human, matter and virtual spaces of Seesaw and Skype. Drawing on various data about six focal students, findings show how the intra-actions among researchers, teachers, students, materials and spaces shaped the participants’ creative acts. This research adds to the literature about developing and applying pedagogies that attend to the enacted agency among teachers, students, materials and spaces in processes of creative meaning making.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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".