Alter(n)ative Literacies: Elementary Teachers' Practices with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse students in one French-language School in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This case study was conducted in one elementary French-language school in Ontario with 1 administrator, 4 teachers and their culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students. Through the integration of bhabha’s (1994) notion of Third space, multiple literacies theory (Cummins, 2001; Masny 2009) and by drawing on interviews, observations, and students’ work samples, I conceptualise an alter(n)ative literacies framework to address growing diversity in French-language schools. The term alter(n)ative is developed to express the intertwined benefit of expanding traditional notions of literacy to include alternative language practices and the potential alter-ative effect of re-envisioning the resources children bring to their literacy and language development at school. This thesis argues that teachers can critically (re)interprete official policies concerning Frenchlanguage schools in order to effectively foster students’ alter(n)ative literacies development. In doing so, teachers affirm the plurality of students’ multiple identities as a foundation for their participation within evolving cosmopolitan franco-ontarian communities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".