The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy edited by David R. Olson and Nancy Torrance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Literacy may be important to some, but is literacy important to everyone?Today 100 million young people have no opportunities for schooling, and approximately one billion more youth and adults do not possess basic literacy skills or the ability to read and write (Farrell, Chapter 28).When one considers that the international community has passed the target year of 2000 that was set to establish universal access to free primary education and that we are well past the halfway target of 2015 declared as the UN Literacy Decade, the question must be asked: Can the mandate of literacy for all ever be attained?(Farrell, Chapter 28).In the light of these vexing facts and statistics, the contributors to this volume argue that literacy should be important to everyone.What have we learned from history about the origins and role of literacy, and what are the role, nature, and consequences of literacy in the 21st century?Is literacy merely a set of skills or competences, or is it understood as much broader than this?What does it mean to be literate today?Are reading, writing, and language understood and valued equally in every culture and society?Should they be?What insights have we gained from the field of neuroscience about the functions of the "reading brain"?What is our understanding of "different literacies," and what effect has information technology had on changing literacy practices?Who is accountable, and whose responsibility is it to prepare children and adults for the increasing literacy demands of the 21st century?Has progress been made in the ongoing debate about the standards of literacy, and where are we in promoting universal literacy and in establishing realistic literacy policies?Many of these queries are explored and addressed across a wide range of topics that examine the multifaceted dimensions of literacy in The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy edited by David R. Olson and Nancy Torrance.Olson and Torrance have collaborated once again to nurture and enhance our understanding of the nature of literacy and what it means to be literate.In this recent endeavor, the editors have rallied prominent and celebrated international scholars who have made significant contributions to understanding literacy to provide a broader perspective of literacy from disciplines as diverse as anthropology, education, history, linguistics, literature, neuroscience, psychology, and sociology.Olson and Torrance's edited handbook examines literacy not from a narrow prescriptive pedagogical approach, but rather from a broad theoretical research-based approach in an effort to provide an interdisciplinary inquiry into As a doctoral student in Faculty of Education in the Department of Elementary Education, Vera Janjic-Watrich is pursuing graduate studies in literacy and reading.Her research interests include teachers' literacy practices and students' reading achievement and habits.Like the contributors to this handbook, she believes that literacy should be important to everyone.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.025 |
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".