Working with verbal and multimodal forms in identity texts in the framework of SFI-course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the framework of second language learning, developed in Canada in the early 2000s, identity texts were a part of a bilingual or multilingual artefacts where students produced many variants. They presented texts as written, spoken, signed,visual, musical, dramatic or multimodal forms. As a result of students’ investment in their own identities, identity texts were considered as a meaningful way to validate multilingualism by inviting students to bring their home languages into the classroom. This thesis aims to investigate the use of verbal and multimodal forms while working with identity texts in a course of Swedish for immigrants, during a monthlong project “New beginning in Sweden”, which took place in a school in the centralof Sweden. Furthermore, this thesis aims to provide students' points of view on the whole process. Combining the method of semi-structured interviews along with observational research in the Swedish for immigrants’ classroom which has identit texts in focus, the thesis tries to answer the following questions:• How was the work with both verbal and multimodal forms of identity texts carried out with the students?• What do students think about working with multimodal forms of identity texts as the second phase of working with verbal texts?• How do students feel that different ways of working with identity texts contributed to their learning of Swedish as a second language? Results of the thesis show that the whole project would have given even better outcome if students were given more time while working with multimodal identity texts. Furthermore, which the students mentioned, they would have liked to have had more freedom in the creativity process, although they do not consider working with identity texts as empowering for their language skills. On the other hand, they describe it as an interesting pause from regular lessons. Last but not least, students were not in favour of working with verbal forms of identity texts because they were not used to be allowed to use their first language while learning their second language. This might complicate their upcoming learning process.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".