MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416948340 · doi:10.1080/13488678.2025.2595373

Gospel-informed pedagogy in multilingual ESL classrooms: a reflective practice grounded in identity, ideology, and inclusion

2025· article· en· W4416948340 on OpenAlexaff
Albert Maganaka

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Englishes · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Education and Schools
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)Reflective practiceGrounded theoryReflection (computer programming)MultilingualismTeacher education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates a principled approach to integrating Gospel-inforned content with English as a Second Language instruction from the perspective of a Christian educator. Employing a John 3:16 cloze activity, it demonstrates how spiritually meaningful material can be embedded in pedagogical practices for low proficiency learners. Grounded in theories of language ideology, intersectionality, World/Asian Englishes, critical pedagogy, and plurilingualism, this paper argues that faith-informed teaching can be both pedagogically rigorous and inclusive. Findings indicate that incorporating Gospel themes through culturally and linguistically resposnive strategies- such as leveraging learners’ first languages and promoting voluntary engagement- supports identity affirmation and inclusive classroom practices. The use of John 3:16 in multiple languages exemplifies a plurilingual orientation, while emphasis on learner agency aligns with critical pedagogy principles. This research contributes to scholarship on inclusive language education by proposing a Gospel-informed pedagogy model that validates multilingual identities and fosters holistic learner development.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.014
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.426 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian EnglishesSame topicReligious Education and SchoolsFrench-language works237,207