Bridging Two Solitudes - Integrating Literacy Research across linguistic, cultural and disciplinary boundaries
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Although there has been increasing interest and openness over the past two decades towards conducting interdisciplinary and collaborative language and literacy research, Anglophone and francophone scholarship in Canada have remained largely isolated within their respective linguistic communities.In 2014, both Anglophone and Francophone scholars came together for a pre-conference hosted at the annual meeting of Language and Literacy Researchers of Canada -L'Association canadienne de chercheurs en langue et litteratie (LLRC-ACCLL) on the theme of "Bridging (Two) Solitudes: Integrating Literacy Research across linguistic, cultural and disciplinary boundaries" in alignment with the broader theme of "Borders without Boundaries" at the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences.As applied linguistics and education researchers, we read this theme in relation to the historic divide between Canada's official languages, what Cummins (2008) has called a "two solitudes approach to bilingualism".Through this lens, two solitudes refers to the ways in which French and English have traditionally been conceptualized in curriculum for Canadian classrooms, compartmentalized as linguistic silos without engaging either language as a resource in the instruction of the other, and without acknowledging the legitimacy of and the potential for bi/multilingual language practice (ie.code-mixing, translanguaging) to enhance meaning making and communication in the educational context.Pedagogically, this approach disregards the extent to which students' linguistic resources are dynamically intertwined in cognitive processes and social activity; moreover, it overlooks the full range of students' linguistic repertoires, which may include not only official languages of English and/or French, but also minoritized languages such as Indigenous languages and immigrant languages.Within our field, the two solitudes metaphor has been used both as a critique and an invitation to consider the assumptions and theoretical bases of bilingualism guiding the work of educators, teacher educators and university-based researchers.For these reasons, we saw the conference theme as well-suited to bring together Francophone and Anglophone language and literacy research.We purposefully organized the pre-conference to foster bilingual dialogue and to build bridges across theories, methodologies, and scholars themselves as a way of supporting future language and literacy research in Canada.To meet this goal required reflection upon our positionality at the time as two Anglophone doctoral candidate cochairs of the pre-conference, a desire for representation of linguistic diversity within our national association, and participation of both Anglophone and Francophone scholars in our pre-conference activities.Prior to this pre-conference, bilingual practices had not explicitly been a part of LLRC-ACCLL's mandate, nor had print or digital communications been disseminated in French.Importantly, 2014 marked the first year that Language and Literacy: A Canadian Education E-Journal (L&L) published a French-
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 | 0,051 | 0,032 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,017 | 0,082 |
| Communication savante | 0,022 | 0,025 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,035 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».