Designing with the Arts in a Pedagogy of Multiliteracies for Young Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter shares learnings from a Canadian participatory action research study to identify, analyze, and implement interdisciplinary approaches for designing with the arts in a pedagogy of multiliteracies. Benefits to young adolescents include personally meaningful and engaged learning, new interests, multiple viewpoints, diverse perspectives, social-emotional competence, and well-being, qualities identified as crucial for successful middle level education. Multimodal arts literacies are positioned in this study as essential semiotic sign systems that are used for perceiving, making meaning, and communicating understandings in and across all disciplines. Arts sign systems or literacies are recognized as unique, expressive, and creative ways of knowing that are equal to all other literacies. Stories of practice from this study (grades 5–7, ages 10–13) provide compelling evidence that a pedagogy of “Arts-Based Multiliteracies” (ABM) supports the holistic growth of young adolescents, their lifelong engagement with the arts, and engagement with all subject area learning. This chapter contributes innovations to support the latest scholarship about interdisciplinary ABM for young adolescents.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".