Literacy and Identity Options: A Case Study of Literacy Curricula in a New Brunswick Transnational Education Program in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
education program in China 1. Context, Existent Literature, and Research Purpose With internationalization being a large part of Canadian educational institutions' strategic plans, Canada recently elevated the priority level of educational cooperation in its bilateral agreement with China.It has promised to expand educational cooperation with China and increase two-way academic mobility (Canada-China Legislative Association, 2012).Lately, there has been a rapid growth of transnational education (i.e., mobility of an education program, institution, or provider between countries) (Knight, 2016).For instance, Canadian programs that provide Canadian curricula in China rose from 48 programs in 2011 (Author A, 2012) to 86 in 2017 (CICIC, 2017).Despite the emerging literature on the cross-border links between Canadian andChinese education (e.g., Connelly & Xu, 2011;Mizzi, 2013;Wang, 2017), existing research on the development and implementation of literacy curricula in transnational education programs appears to be scarce.Existing literature on tertiary transnational education expresses concerns that this elite form of globalized education might further deteriorate educational inequities in less-developed countries (Guttman, 2000;Ziguras, 2008).Hence, Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery, and Taubman ( 2008) see an urgency to conduct empirical studies that explore the "ecological, economic, political, and social interdependence" of these communities (p.803), and we might add, the literacy and identity interrelationship.In this study, we investigated a transnational education program (Pseudonym: Sino-New Brunswick School [SNBS]) in an inner city in Mainland China that used Canadian curriculum from New Brunswick.We asked: How SNBS produced the intended curriculum with what types of literacy practices and identities to enact?How were these intended literacy practices and identities actualized in the English and Chinese literacy classrooms?What were the effects on students' lived curricula as related to their literacy and identity options? Conceptual Framework:This research sought to consolidate an innovative set of field-tested theories pertaining to curriculum, multiliteracies, and identity.Curriculum.Curriculum has been seen as a "blueprint for achievement" (Egan, 2003, p. 10) articulated in a document or as a complex dialogue (Routman, 2000) comprised of curricular commonplaces (Schwab, 1973).We use the concepts of intended, implemented, and lived curriculum to capture variations that take place when curriculum policies are translated to particular contexts.The intended curriculum is "what is planned in the way of aims, content, activities, and sequence" (Eisner, 2002, p. 32).While institutional curriculum relates to abstract policies or ideas about what should be taught at school, intended curriculum is often instantiated in curricular documents (i.e., the programmatic curriculum) (e.g., Doyle, 1992).The implemented curriculum involves what takes place in the "real-world" of schools and classrooms and attends to the result of dynamic interactions between educators, learners, subject matter, and social milieu (Schwab, 1973).To capture the effects of the previous two aspects of curriculum, the project also draws on Aoki's (2005) concept of lived curriculum which emphasizes the multiplicity of students' lived experiences within intended and implemented curricula. Multiliteracies & Identity.Literacy is at the heart of this research and we conceptualize literacy through multiliteracies to reckon with the semiotic, linguistic, and discursive complexity of the curricula in question.To respond to growing cultural and linguistic diversity in the globalized world and new communication technologies, the New London Group (1996) coined the term multiliteracies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".