Huo, X. (2020). Higher Education Internationalization and English Language Instruction: Intersectionality of Race and Language in Canadian Universities. Cham: Springer International Publishing AG.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Xiangying Huo's monograph, Higher Education Internationalization and English Language Instruction: Intersectionality of Race and Language in Canadian Universities, tells a thought-provoking story of a non-native English-speaking instructor's experiences working at a Canadian higher institution's writing centre.By unfolding the "inner" voices of the author's autoethnographic accounts and "outer" voices of interview data conducted with six students, this book reflects the ideological link between the English language and the white race rooted in the history of European colonization (Rosa & Flores, 2017) and unmasks how nonnative English-speaking instructors are deprived of legitimacy to work in English language education in postcolonial Canada.Following a traditional dissertation format, Huo's book offers a detailed description of the following content: (1) a conceptual framework that combines Bourdieu's (1991) theorization of cultural capital and Critical Race Theory (CRT) (Crenshaw et al., 1995), (2) a literature review that underlines pivotal issues in World Englishes (WE) and teaching English as an International Language (EIL), (3) a methodological illustration of autoethnography supplemented by qualitative interviews and fieldnotes, and (4) findings and discussion that aim to stimulate more equitable practices in English language education.This book may benefit a wide range of reader groups, including educational researchers, policy makers, English instructors, and curriculum developers, for it exposes structural barriers facing non-native English-speaking instructors and provokes critical awareness and pedagogical contemplation to decolonize English language education in Canada.The conceptual framework (Chapter 2) incorporating cultural capital and CRT provides a sound foundation for an in-depth analysis of the relationship between language and race in English education.Importantly, Huo points out how racial affiliations and linguistic repertoires can be seen as different forms of cultural capital that are endowed with differential levels of market value in the social fields in which they lay claim (see also Carrington & Luke, 1997).By highlighting the fundamental issues of legitimacy, power, social stratification, and identity shared by the two theoretical constructs, Huo successfully implements both in the dissection of her teaching experiences in postcolonial and post-secondary English programs.Furthermore, Huo gives a systematic literature review on WE and teaching EIL (Chapters 3 and 4), offering multiple angles for book readers to approach crucial topics such as native-speakerism, linguistic imperialism, ideology of standard English, and multifaceted challenges (e.g., linguistic, sociopolitical, and occupational) confronting non-native English-speaking instructors in EIL.Additionally, the methodological demonstration (Chapter 5) aids readers to contextualize research sites in which the study was conducted, connect research questions to data collecting strategies (i.e., reflective journals, autobiographic interviews, and fieldnotes), and better understand the author's and other participants' positions in this autoethnographic project.Findings of the study enunciate two types of voices.The outer voices (data collected through interviews) first present six selected students' socio-historical locations in Canadian society (i.e., familial background, sociocultural and sociopolitical identities) and then investigate their perceptions of the role of
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".