LITERACY INSIDE AND OUT: INVESTIGATING THE LITERACY PRACTICES OF ADULT ENGLISH LITERACY LEARNERS Master of Arts, 2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adult English literacy learners (ELLs) are learners with limited or no formal schooling in their first language who are learning to read and write in English. At present, the limited research surrounding adult ELL instruction does not fully investigate the literacies that learners make use of outside of the classroom in a Canadian context. Through the lens of the New Literacy Studies, this case study examines the variety of print-literacy practices that adult ELLs engage with inside and outside of the classroom, highlights the value of these literacy practices, and emphasizes the importance of connecting out-of-class literacy practices with those occurring in the classroom. Additionally, this study uses learner perspectives to describe out-of-class literacy practices and provides a platform for adult ELLs to discuss their in-class preferences. The findings indicate the necessity of acknowledging prior experiences of ELLs in the classroom and provide implications for in-class instruction and resettlement agencies. iii Acknowledgments I am entirely grateful to all of those who have made the completion of this thesis
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".