MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Systematized Review of Anti-Racist Pedagogical Strategies

2024· review· en· W4390711833 on OpenAlexaff
Teresa Holden, Clayton Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in educational marketing, administration, and leadership book series · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCritical Race Theory in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRacismInterrogationEllEnglish languagePedagogySociologyLanguage assessmentLanguage educationSociology of languageLinguisticsPsychologyTeaching methodComprehension approachMathematics educationGender studiesPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Racism permeates postsecondary language classrooms around the world which affects the experiences and learning outcomes of language students, namely those who study English as an additional language and English as a foreign language, referred to as additional language learners (ALLs), English as a second language (ESL), or English language learners (ELLs). Through an interrogation of the connection between race and language instruction, this chapter discusses anti-racist practices that interfere with language teaching in higher education. It presents a systematized review that aims to critically examine existing literature on the interrogation of racism within higher education with a focus on anti-racist pedagogical strategies. Critical Race Theory (CRT) guides the analysis and highlights the underlying power structures and systemic racism that shape language education. This review finds evidence of epistemological racism, linguistic biases, White supremacy, and English language dominance in the higher education language classroom. Recommendations for teacher practice are made.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.154
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in educational marketing, administration, and leadership book seriesSame topicCritical Race Theory in EducationFrench-language works237,207