Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".