<scp> <b>FROM CRITICAL LITERACY TO CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE</b> </scp> <b> <scp>TEACHING</scp> : <scp>USING TEACHER</scp> ‐ <scp>MADE</scp> </b> <scp> <b>MATERIALS IN DIFFICULT CONTEXTS</b> </scp> Edited by MelinaPortoSpringerSingapore. <scp>ISBN</scp> 978‐98116‐5779‐5. Price <scp>USD</scp> 109.99 (hardcover). <scp>ISBN</scp> 978‐98116‐5780‐1. Price <scp>USD</scp> 16.99 (e‐book). 226 pages.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical thinking is not just for improving scores-it is a means to stimulate learners' awareness of social injustice.Upholding this belief, Melina Porto showcases four case studies in the edited volume, From Critical Literacy to Critical Pedagogy in English Language Teaching, in which teachers successfully adopted critical pedagogies to raise learners' awareness of salient social issues.Porto is both the editor and main author of this volume, as she not only provides the book's introduction but also co-authors five chapters with contributors, all of them practising classroom teachers who work in the public schooling system in Argentina.This focused authorship demonstrates a thorough understanding of the systemic obstacles that emerge from a discrepancy between policy making and its execution.Through case studies of rural schools in Argentina, Porto and her five co-authors discuss how criticality provides a social justice basis for language learning.They also highlight that embracing critical pedagogies in places where educational resources are scarce is not as easy as it would be in a resource-abundant context in the Global North, requiring therefore high levels of teachers' agency and flexibility to cultivate critical thinking.Issues related to students aged 8-16 are addressed in this book, which makes it especially valuable for teachers at the primary and secondary levels.Porto's introduction outlines how the book is structured: three parts containing eight chapters in which vital dimensions of critical literacy and critical pedagogy in ESOL settings are scrutinised.Each chapter ends with thought-provoking questions that engage the reader to evaluate how each pedagogy can be adopted and localised to fit specific teaching contexts.Instead of providing a direct answer to these questions, the book illustrates theories of critical literacy with concrete examples that are then incorporated into practice.Part 1 comprises two chapters addressing critical language education, the first of which (chapter 2) defines what criticality means in education, as well as emphasizing its importance in fostering skills that can dehierarchise the homogenizing practices commonly found
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.005 |
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".