Seminars as spaces for mediating affordances: plurilingual students’ perceived sociocultural norms and expectations for participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite increasing interest in plurilingualism, the implementation of plurilingual and pluricultural pedagogies to foster classroom inclusivity remains underexplored. This study focuses on three seminar classes to examine the mediating activities used by instructors to establish context for classroom discussion and interaction. In addition, this article also explores the perceived affordances of sociocultural norms and practices for participation by plurilingual graduate students. Data were gathered through classroom observations and interviews with instructors and plurilingual students speaking English as an additional language. Drawing on mediation (Council of Europe [2020]. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment-Companion Volume. Council of Europe Publishing; Piccardo [2022]. ‘The Mediated Nature of Plurilingualism’. In The Routledge Handbook of Plurilingual Language Education, edited by E. Piccardo, A. Germain- Rutherford, and G. Lawrence, 65–81. Routledge) and the Theory of Affordances (Gibson [1986]. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perceptions. Erlbaum; Glăveanu [2012]. ‘What Can be Done with an egg? Creativity, Material Objects, and the Theory of Affordances’. The Journal of Creative Behavior 46 (3): 192–208), it was found that across all three seminars, instructors demonstrated conceptual mediation to mediate knowledge, concepts, and theories related to each course. At the same time, each instructor focused on particular aspects of mediation, including textual, relational, or intercultural mediation. The plurilingual students in each seminar class perceived sociocultural practices and normative ways of taking turns, presenting information, and using conventional phrases to signal conversational turns. These findings highlight the importance of addressing and mediating normative practices for participation to avoid unintentionally communicating to plurilingual students that they need to adapt and change their plurilingual and pluricultural participation practices.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".