“English literature doesn’t only have to be about English words”: multilingual immigrant and refugee young adults interpret literature using reader response and critical literacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research documents multilingual immigrant and refugee young adults’ engagement with literary works by Canadian authors who are immigrants, refugees and people of colour. I facilitated workshops in which eight participants interpreted poetry and short stories using reader response theory, critical literacy and theories engaging difference and power, e.g., coalition politics theory and critical race theory. Interweaving the participants’ insights with the theoretical framework, I discuss the conditions that supported their meaningful engagement with literature. Key findings include 1) Reader response pedagogies that encourage intertextual analysis and collaborative meaning-making can create space for multiliteracies and experiential knowledge to be validated as legitimate interpretive practices; 2) Critical literacy and theories of difference are essential for creating “safe” spaces in which different interpretations may inform one another; 3) Immigrants and refugees mobilize their multiple languages and identities as critical lenses for challenging exclusionary discourses in English-medium educational settings and Canadian literary criticism.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".