Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper critically examines four major traditions of literacy pedagogy: didactic, authentic, functional, and critical, to evaluate their effectiveness in supporting the academic needs of immigrant students in Canadian schools. While didactic approaches emphasize the transmission of standardized knowledge, and authentic and functional models promote real-world relevance and skill application, these traditions do not sufficiently confront the systemic inequities that shape immigrant learners’ experiences. In contrast, a critical literacy framework, informed by the works of Freire, Giroux, and other scholars, offers a more transformative orientation because it foregrounds power, identity, and social justice. Integrating perspectives from multiliteracies theory, the paper also argues that immigrant students’ diverse linguistic and cultural repertoires expand what counts as literacy, challenging monolingual and deficit-based assumptions that often govern classroom practice. Drawing on culturally responsive pedagogy, the paper demonstrates how instructional approaches that value students’ lived experiences and community knowledge foster agency, engagement, and academic success. Supported by existing research and reflective classroom insights, the analysis also acknowledges limitations inherent in reflective methodology. The paper concludes by outlining implications for classroom practice, policy development, and future research in increasingly diverse Canadian educational contexts.
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 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 | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".