Shifting Transliteracies in Elementary School: Understanding How Transliteracy Practices Contribute to Grade Three Students’ Construction of Meaning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Situated within social constructivist understandings of multiliteracies, this eight-month ethnographic study explored transliteracy practices in a grade three classroom. The intention of this research was to conduct an ethnographic case study to understand how digital and multiliteracies support the ways children construct meaning through transliteracy practices in elementary school. Findings revealed that transliteracy, using both digital and analog technologies across modes, media, genres, and platforms, is an effective lens to understand the shifting literacy practices of young 21st-century learners. Transliteracy is described in relation to four understandings of literacy: critical transliteracy, digital transliteracy, social transliteracy, and disciplinary transliteracy. Understandings and implications of a transliteracy mindset are articulated in their contributions to scholarship and pedagogy and through descriptive examples of transliteracy in the classroom. This study contributes to growing conceptual understandings of transliteracy and supports the fluid nature of transliterate learning. It promotes the use of multiliteracies, student choice, and opportunities to use more than one mode, device, or platform simultaneously at school. Canadian students constantly face many choices in literacies, thus, being transliterate becomes significant to their literacy education.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".