Investigating the Place of Children’s Home Literacy in the Ontario Kindergarten Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ontario Kindergarten programmatic curriculum (OME, 2016), was examined to determine and articulate how it represents children’s and families’ funds of knowledge in relation to home literacy and literacy learning at school. The Kindergarten Program (2016) was the primary source for the document analysis methodology adopted. Funds of knowledge underpins this study as the main theoretical framework. The findings indicated that The Kindergarten Program had little emphasis on the significance of understanding more about children’s home, culture, and community perspectives. However, the programmatic curriculum document highlighted children’s sense of belonging, and the freedom to express their opinion and ideas. The study recommends that the programmatic curriculum needs to closely look at children’s funds of knowledge and encourage educators to further include and value the experiences that children bring to school from home. Funds of knowledge concepts call upon educators to communicate and create relationships with families that are built on a mutual trust. Robust relationships between teachers, children, and families contribute to the construction of a concrete bridge between school and home. This in turn allows children to value who they and develop as confident citizens and lifelong learners.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".