A Landscape View of Literacy Studies in Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Over a hundred literacy researchers gathered at the University of Victoria for the 10 th annual Language and Literacy Researchers of Canada (LLRC) preconference, Writing the Past: Reading the Future.The preconference invited scholars to explore the landscape of literacy studies and present papers and engage in discussions and debates about where we have been, where we are, and where we are going as a field.Building on the momentum of this event, we have come together as organizers of the preconference with this special issue that brought together a number of Canadian scholars' work in diverse areas of literacy education from adult literacy to digital literacies, multiliteracies, Canadian Aboriginal children's literature and family literacy programs.The five papers in this issue explore literacy learning across a range of in-school and out-of-school contexts illustrating the complex, multiple, layered and dynamic nature of literacies in our everyday lives.The first three papers come from our conference panelists and review the authors' past and current research as well as their considerations for future research.Suzanne Smythe presents a review of 10 years of adult literacy policy and practice in Canada.Smythe draws on the concepts of 'policy networks' (Hamilton, 2014), 'powerful literacies' (Crowther, Tett, & Hamilton, 2012) and 'workaround' (Campbell 2012;Debono et al. 2013) to analyze policy texts and discourses.She discusses the tensions between the centrally imposed accountability structures and policy priorities, contrasted with the actualities of local educational contexts.She argues that educators and learners "participate in policy networks as powerful actors" and that definitions of literacy are constantly shaped and re-shaped though this interaction of texts, discourses, power, and agency.Lynne Wiltse's paper offers a critical reflective narrative focusing on Aboriginal children's literature in Canada.Drawing on Aldana (2008) and Bothelho and Rudman's (2009) work, Wiltse analyzes her research, teaching and learning experiences using the three metaphors of "books that are mirrors", where students see themselves and their realities reflected; "books that are windows", which offer insights to Others' worlds; and "books that are doors", which invite readers to social action.Wiltse discusses the importance of considering cultural diversity in relation to text selection in K-12 classrooms as well as in teacher education programs, and stresses the value of using these texts that confront the status quo or the mainstream ideology and bring issues of social inequities to the forefront so that students and teachers can engage in critical discussion.Wiltse draws on the notions of 'difficult knowledge' (Pitt & Britzman, 2006) and 'pedagogy of discomfort' (Boler, 1999; Boler & Zembylas, 2003) as she examines the challenges and the role that discomfort plays while teachers and students explore difficult issues such as oppression, marginalization and social inequity.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,020 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,058 | 0,029 |
| Communication savante | 0,024 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,012 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».