MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160267195

Adolescent Literacy in the Academic Disciplines: General Principles and Practical Strategies

2014· article· en· W2160267195 on OpenAlex
Anna Keefe

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l éducation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Methods and Media Use
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisciplineLiteracyReading (process)Framing (construction)Context (archaeology)Subject (documents)Mathematics educationPedagogyPsychologyComputer scienceSociologyLibrary sciencePolitical scienceSocial scienceEngineeringHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adolescent Literacy in the Academic Disciplines: General Principles and Practical Strategies edited by Tamara L. Jetton and Cynthia Shanahan New York, NY: Guildford Press, 2012, 274 pages ISBN: ISBN: 978-1-4625-0283-7 (hardcover), 978-1-4625-0280-6 (paperback) In Adolescent Literacy in the Academic Disciplines, editors Tamara L. Jetton and Cynthia Shanahan provide an overview of principles and strategies for guiding student reading in high school subject areas. The introduction and framing of the book is well researched, convincingly written, and densely packed with practical information. Chapter 1, Learning from Text: Adolescent Literacy from the Past Decade by Tamara L. Jetton and Richard Lee, describes the performance of American high school students on literacy tests and suggests that teachers need to spend more than the current 3% of classroom time on explicit reading strategies (Ness, 2007, 2009, as cited in Jetton & Shanahan, 2012, pp. 1-2). Chapters 2, 3, and 4 describe common reading challenges in the disciplines, habits of text used by disciplinary experts, and how to apply these ideas to lesson planning. Chapters 5 through 9, written by a variety of American-based scholars, are dedicated to describing the literacy strategies needed for specific high school subject areas. Chapter 1 includes a review of studies on strategies and instructional frameworks, outlining the context of each study and the key findings. For instance, concept-oriented reading instruction (CORI) is described as a framework that involves students in activating prior knowledge, generating questions, searching for information, organizing new knowledge and monitoring their comprehension (Guthrie, 2004, as cited in Jetton & Shanahan, 2012, p.10). Jetton and Lee explain that essential components that make the framework successful are student involvement in their own goal setting, reading relevant material, and engaging in discussion. They cite two studies that support CORI as effective for increasing student reading comprehension. In addition, Appendix 1.1 elaborates on further strategies and each of their associated objectives and instructions (pp. 24-33). Providing such a thorough overview of these strategies works to raise awareness of the broad range of options available and encourages readers to think about potential applications, depending on objectives and context. Jetton and Lee explain that more research is needed on which strategies work best for specific disciplines, thereby setting up the thesis for the book. The chapters that focus on language arts, math, science, history, and the arts are helpful in their level of detail and the use of classroom examples to illustrate different teaching and learning strategies in action. At their best, these chapters are well organized, relate to the thesis, clearly define assumptions and theories, and offer relevant teaching strategies. For instance, in the chapter Learning with Texts in History: Protocols for Reading and Practical Strategies, Bruce VanSledright anchors his argument in a description of the unique challenges and opportunities afforded by historical texts. He explains that they are hypertextual (draw from other texts), intertextual (require reading between different versions of the same events), and partially multimodal (span a variety of forms and media from pottery to film). …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it