MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2267020417 · doi:10.2304/ciec.2011.12.4.293

Early Literacy in Contested Spaces

2011· article· en· W2267020417 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
María Paula Ghiso, Tamara Spencer

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Issues in Early Childhood · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiteracyPedagogyCritical literacyEarly childhood educationEarly childhoodSociologyNarrativeCurriculumLifeworldGlobeContext (archaeology)ConversationPolitical sciencePsychologySocial scienceHistoryLinguisticsDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ryan & Graue’s (2009) Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood special edition, Examining a Lifeworld: early childhood policy in practice, provides convincing evidence that early childhood is very much on the ‘policy radar.’ Indeed, one of the curricular domains where this trend has proven to be most accurate is with regard to early literacy teaching and learning. Over the years at international conferences, reading the latest research, and in discussions with colleagues, we have found ourselves chronicling the increased demands literacy policies place upon both children and professionals within early childhood settings. All too often, the locus of these reforms has been academic (e.g., prescribed language and literacy curricula), generating what Ryan & Graue would argue is policy’s way of creating a singular narrative from a particular point of view. Towards this end, through initiatives across the globe, curricular policies have emerged that predicate certain perspectives on literacy and the ways in which educators respond to children in these learning environments. The danger – as the novelist Chimamanda Adichie (2009) cautions – is creating a single story, in this case, of literacy learning. In this special issue, we ask: Who are most influenced by these policies? What pedagogical practices and beliefs existed previously, co-exist, or emerge as alternatives to dominant policy narratives? Are there other stories to be told? This special issue emphasizes today’s early childhood literacy context as a contested space with multiple voices and perspectives that should be part of the conversation. Despite policies that position literacy reform in predefined terms, we look to individuals to understand how they grapple with, embrace, and question literacy teaching and learning on a day-to-day basis. In this issue, we hear stories from classrooms in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States that shed light on how educators and children negotiate contested literacy spaces. Each of the six manuscripts is followed by a response, written by early literacy colleagues from different geographical areas (Akin; Campano & Low; Comber; Duckles & Larson; Simon; Soto & De Moed) that provide additional lenses to consider the data presented by the contributing authors. In the spirit of international dialogue, the respondents add to the traditional journal structure, beginning a conversation that will hopefully move beyond the pages of this volume and into classrooms, schools, and research institutions.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContemporary Issues in Early ChildhoodSame topicEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207