The semantic and syntactic qualities of paneling in students’ graphic narratives
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overarching purpose of the classroom-based research featured in this article was to explore the development of middle-year students’ visual meaning-making skills and competencies. The research was informed by multimodality and social semiotics, and embraced a sociocultural perspective of literacy and a transactional theory of literature. Over a period of several weeks, Grade 7 students had opportunities to learn about a selection of elements of visual art and design, and some conventions of graphic novels, including paneling. In addition to reading, responding in writing to, and discussing a selection of picturebooks, graphic novels and magazine issues, the students composed their own texts using the medium of comics. In this article I focus on the paneling in the graphic narratives created by seven student participants. The content analysis of the students’ graphic narratives revealed the intentionality of their panel meaning-making, and the semantic and syntactic qualities embodied in their paneling. Excerpts from the students’ interviews revealed how learning about the what, why and how of paneling affected the composing of their work. I conclude the article with a consideration of some pedagogical issues associated with the teaching of paneling and other conventions in the medium of comics.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it