Privilege and Vulnerability: Early Study Abroad Experiences and Policy Enactment in a Superdiverse Secondary School
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation explores the lived experience of Early Study Abroad (fee-paying international) students in a publicly funded Ontario secondary school. I situate my research in the broader context of international education, particularly the recruitment and hosting of students from abroad. The study also explores the complex world of adolescent language learning and intercultural exchange in a superdiverse school setting.\nMy qualitative case study comprises interviews with students, who describe their personal experiences, and educators, who reflect on their own practices and share observations of their colleagues’ pedagogical response to this cohort. My analysis was influenced by my experience as an English as a Second Language/English teacher who worked with Early Study Abroad students and informed by a reading of relevant policy documents.\nI use several complementary frameworks: Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) ecological model of development; theories from critical policy research (Ball, 1993, 2015; Ball et al., 2012; Levinson & Sutton, 2001) and engaged language policy and practice (Menken & García; 2010; Ricento & Hornberger, 1996); and Vertovec’s (2007, 2019) concept of superdiversity.\nMy findings reveal that students’ experiences and teacher responses are broadly shaped by discourses that support the marketization of education at a global scale. At the school level, highly agentive students successfully navigated their way through an educational system that did not widely acknowledge or support them, notwithstanding the efforts of few engaged teachers. My policy recommendations include stronger oversight of student care and well-being, more opportunities for professional development and collaboration for teachers who work in linguistically diverse classrooms, and greater transparency in accounting for the management of student tuition revenue.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".