<i>Mapping Recreational Literacies: Contemporary Adults at Play</i> by Margaret Mackey
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Sometimes you read a book that makes you feel genuinely excited about your vocation.These are books that matter.Mapping Recreational Literacies: Contemporary Adults at Play by Margaret Mackey falls into the category of books that matter.The book let me take stock of the articles, chapters, and books that I have read over the past few years, and it extended how I feel about them, the field of multimodality and "new" literacies more generally.As Turkle (2007) observes, "We think with the objects we love; we love the objects we think with" (p.5).Mackey lets us see how texts make us learn in varying ways while at the same time analyzing what it is about them that absorbs our attention.With eloquence and measured analysis, Mackey offers a detailed picture of nine individuals and their textual worlds and how they interact with other textual worlds.The book serves as compelling evidence of how much we think and exist through objects in our worlds.To keep the concept of mapping fluid, Mackey structures her book around genres of texts and participants' relationships to these genres.She artfully explores this landscape of textual networks by mapping (note the double meaning here) the stories of Ben, Courtney, Seth, and others and the tacit principles of their meaning-making onto the text content and design.Each of the nine meaning-makers carries his or her own unique cultural agency that is foregrounded with particular texts, and the case studies work well as a collective in discussion/implications sections.In the book Mackey takes account of the world of games, of picture books, of novels, of graphic stories-and she does so not cursorily, but rather fixes her gaze on what these texts do and, to return to Turkle, how we think with texts that we love.By invoking Rabinowitz's four rules of reading, Mackey shows us that there are ways of connecting other research frameworks to multimodal theory.Mackey describes the "distinctive individuality of each participant," and like Mackey, I would have expected some repetition in responses, but Mackey's thick description of their textual worlds teased out how different their worlds were.Jennifer Rowsell is an assistant professor in English education in the Graduate School of Education where she teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in literacy education.She has co-written books and articles in the areas of new literacy studies, multimodality, family literacy, and multiliteracies.She is involved in three research studies: one looking at adolescent artifacts as a way into writing; an ARC-funded study in Australia and the United States on parents' networks of information about literacy and literacy development; and research on the production of print and digital media as the basis of a pedagogy of innovation.
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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,015 | 0,002 |
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 ».