Transformative plurilingualism pedagogies in English academic writing: instructor perceptions
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
This study investigates the possibility of plurilingual pedagogies in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) and English Academic Writing (EAW) to promote inclusion. Drawing on the notion of plurilingualism (Coste et al. Citation2009), this study focuses on instructors’ perception and treatment of students’ home languages in the EAP/EAW classroom. Qualitative semi- structured interviews were conducted with 10 EAP/EAW instructors from two Canadian universities in uniquely bilingual contexts. Reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke Citation2021a, Citation2021b, Citation2025) was used to analyze the data for semantic and latent meaning. The data shows the dominance of prevailing, monolingual ideologies and the underutilization of students’ full linguistic repertoire despite recognition of the social, cultural, and linguistic value of being plurilingual. Data further suggests tensions between educational best practices, the place of students’ home languages, and promoting inclusion through teacher-led plurilingual pedagogies. These tensions arise from a monoglossic conceptualization of language as fixed and stable, in contrast to the messiness and fluidity of plurilingualism, which is heteroglossic. Only by embracing a heteroglossic orientation to language can instructors feel capable of integrating students’ linguistic diversity into the classroom.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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