MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2541879666 · doi:10.1002/trtr.1536

Honoring All Learners

2016· article· en· W2541879666 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jan Lacina, Robin Griffith

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Reading Teacher · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueReading and Literacy Development
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPopulationLiteracyTheme (computing)LinguisticsBilingual educationMathematics educationPsychologyPedagogySociologyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebDemography

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

It is estimated that more than half of the world's population is bilingual (Ansaldo, Marcotte, Scherer, & Raboyeau, 2008; Grosjean, 2012). However, across the world, it is difficult to measure the number of bilingual and multilingual individuals because of the type of language questions requested on national census surveys. Researchers know that there is a significant population that speaks two or more languages, and in many countries, it is the norm to be multilingual. The people of many countries speak diverse and multiple languages, such as the 722 languages spoken in Indonesia, the 445 languages in India, and the 207 languages in Australia (Grosjean, 2012). Despite the sheer number of languages spoken worldwide, many school systems, particularly in the United States, continue to embrace monolingualism. As we have become more interconnected globally through technology and ease of travel, it is time to rethink how to provide better support for language learning and language learners. Honoring All Learners is the theme of this particular issue. Honoring bilingual and multilingual children is an important component of providing excellent literacy instruction for all of our children. Honoring all learners means respecting where children come from and valuing their linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Twenty years ago, newcomer children entering U.S. schools were often viewed through a deficit lens. The focus was not on what they knew but on what they could not speak, read, or write in English. We've come a long way in the past 20 years—but we still have more work to do. In this issue of The Reading Teacher, Mariana Souto-Manning explains ways that we can continue to honor and build on the language and literacy practices of our young bilingual and multilingual learners. In her article, Souto-Manning provides a historical background of the challenges that language learners face in U.S. public schools, and she notes legislative turning points for bilingual education. She describes issues of access and equity in education and shares examples of culturally relevant teaching in the classroom. Souto-Manning invites readers to think about ways to honor and build on the language and literacy practices of bilingual and multilingual learners in their classrooms. This issue's feature articles include a variety of topics that connect theory to practice. Melissa A. Gallagher and Blythe E. Anderson show us new ways to engage children with vocabulary instruction. Hope K. Gerde, Megan E. Goetsch, and Gary E. Bingham's article focuses on ways to use environmental print in the early childhood classroom to promote writing. Katia Ciampa demonstrates how to implement a digital reading and writing model within the context of content literacy instruction in an urban elementary school, and Jill S. Jones, Kristin Conradi, and Steven J. Amendum show how to match reading interventions to reading needs. Marva Cappello and Nancy T. Walker explain Visual Thinking Strategies for closely reading complex visual texts, and William Boerman-Cornell writes about the experiences of second and fourth graders reading graphic novels. Last, Kathy Ganske provides an important framework for next-generation word study. The Teaching Tips in this issue focus on the early childhood learner and classroom and text-based writing. Encouraging reading to learn as a comprehension strategy is an important teaching tip for all early readers. Scaffolding writing in the early childhood classroom and sustaining engagement during the interactive writing lesson are topics also addressed. The Voices From the Classroom pieces feature an elementary teacher from Georgia, Amanda M. Butler, who describes the importance of meeting students’ emotional needs. Chelsie Schmitt, a fifth-grade teacher from Michigan, explains the importance and necessity of using voice when reading aloud to students. Two departments are included in this issue of The Reading Teacher. The first is Integrating Children's Literature, which focuses on the teaching and use of children's literature and provides educators with information about a wide range of books across multiple genres that are representative of the diverse world in which we live. Jonda C. McNair heads this department, and her first article in this volume is “#WeNeedMirrorsAndWindows: Diverse Classroom Libraries for K–6 Students.” She offers an exciting, diverse collection of books that can support all students while affirming students’ own cultural identities and providing a positive perspective on others. In the Global Literacy department, Shelley Stagg Peterson offers a fascinating article on research in Canada's rural and indigenous communities. She describes how educators can support children's oral language and writing within these communities. Through international examples of teaching, learning, and best practices, we learn how to meet the literacy needs of all children. In closing, throughout the school year, consider ways to honor all children. Our world is linguistically rich, so let's reexamine ways to include best practices for multilingual and bilingual children within our school communities. Building on the language and literacy practices of our bilingual and multilingual learners benefits us all. As noted author Frank Smith said, “One language sets you in a corridor for life. Two languages open every door along the way.” Let's open those doors for our children.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,049
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,163

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,016
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0090,003
Communication savante0,0090,012
Science ouverte0,0020,022
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0490,017

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,044
Tête enseignante GPT0,325
Écart entre enseignants0,281 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Reading TeacherMême sujetReading and Literacy DevelopmentTravaux en français237 207