A study on the evaluation of foundational literacy with the case of BC, Canada and Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore the concept of literacy, examine how foundational literacy education is assessed in other countries, and present the directions for the evaluation of foundational literacy in Korea. To this end, first, we looked into the meaning of so-called ‘foundational literacy’ introduced in new national curriculum and how literacy and numeracy has been measured in Korea. Second, we examined how literacy and numeracy education is implemented in Canada’s B.C. and Australia through their revised curriculum and how they are assessed. Third, we summarized the characteristics of evaluating literacy and numeracy in these two countries. Then, we provided implications for the directions of evaluating foundational literacy based on findings. Findings from the review of the characteristics of BC’s FSA and Australian OFAI’s the national learning progressions are as follows. First, literacy and numeracy are taught through all subjects and are cross-curricular. Second, in the evaluation of literacy and numeracy the real-life connection was emphasized. Third, the evaluation of literacy and numeracy are focused on the developmental aspects of skills. Fourth, the evaluation of literacy and numeracy is designed in alignment with state or national level curricula. The implications for the evaluation of foundational literacy education in Korea are as follows. First, foundational literacy education of literacy and numeracy needs to be conducted and evaluated through a cross-curricula approach and in connection with the national curriculum. Second, the evaluation of literacy and numeracy needs to reflect the context of real life. Third, it is necessary to provide a framework to show the developmental spectrum of skills in the evaluation of literacy and numeracy.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".