The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy edited by David R. Olson and Nancy Torrance
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Literacy may be important to some, but is literacy important to everyone?Today 100 million young people have no opportunities for schooling, and approximately one billion more youth and adults do not possess basic literacy skills or the ability to read and write (Farrell, Chapter 28).When one considers that the international community has passed the target year of 2000 that was set to establish universal access to free primary education and that we are well past the halfway target of 2015 declared as the UN Literacy Decade, the question must be asked: Can the mandate of literacy for all ever be attained?(Farrell, Chapter 28).In the light of these vexing facts and statistics, the contributors to this volume argue that literacy should be important to everyone.What have we learned from history about the origins and role of literacy, and what are the role, nature, and consequences of literacy in the 21st century?Is literacy merely a set of skills or competences, or is it understood as much broader than this?What does it mean to be literate today?Are reading, writing, and language understood and valued equally in every culture and society?Should they be?What insights have we gained from the field of neuroscience about the functions of the "reading brain"?What is our understanding of "different literacies," and what effect has information technology had on changing literacy practices?Who is accountable, and whose responsibility is it to prepare children and adults for the increasing literacy demands of the 21st century?Has progress been made in the ongoing debate about the standards of literacy, and where are we in promoting universal literacy and in establishing realistic literacy policies?Many of these queries are explored and addressed across a wide range of topics that examine the multifaceted dimensions of literacy in The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy edited by David R. Olson and Nancy Torrance.Olson and Torrance have collaborated once again to nurture and enhance our understanding of the nature of literacy and what it means to be literate.In this recent endeavor, the editors have rallied prominent and celebrated international scholars who have made significant contributions to understanding literacy to provide a broader perspective of literacy from disciplines as diverse as anthropology, education, history, linguistics, literature, neuroscience, psychology, and sociology.Olson and Torrance's edited handbook examines literacy not from a narrow prescriptive pedagogical approach, but rather from a broad theoretical research-based approach in an effort to provide an interdisciplinary inquiry into As a doctoral student in Faculty of Education in the Department of Elementary Education, Vera Janjic-Watrich is pursuing graduate studies in literacy and reading.Her research interests include teachers' literacy practices and students' reading achievement and habits.Like the contributors to this handbook, she believes that literacy should be important to everyone.
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 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,059 | 0,025 |
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 ».