Multimodal Academic Discourse Socialization: Examining Geoscience Students’ Disciplinary Knowledge Construction and Socialization at a Canadian University
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This ethnographic multiple-case study examines how undergraduate students are socialized into the disciplinary norms, values, and practices of a geoscience course at a Canadian university. Transcending logocentric assumptions about academic discourse, this article advances a broader domain of inquiry––multimodal academic discourse socialization––which foregrounds the polysemiotic nature of academic socialization. This approach examines not only linguistic but also a wider range of semiotic resources, including gestural, visual, material, and spatial ones, among others. To understand geoscientists’ disciplinary norms, values, and communicative practices, ethnographic data (classroom observations, semi-structured interviews, course-related artefacts) were thematically analysed. Focal students’ geoscience poster presentation performances were also analysed using multimodal interaction analysis to scrutinize micro-level instantiations of disciplinary practices. Findings highlight how students were socialized into geoscience ‘observations and interpretations’ through a recurrent multimodal classroom activity, which was also reflected in micro-level multimodal practices enacted in students’ geoscience poster presentations. This study emphasizes that multimodal enactments constitute a crucial dimension of disciplinary practices and values connected with learning to think, view, and represent knowledge as geoscientists.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it