CURRICULUM AS A SAFE PLACE: PARENTAL PERCEPTIONS OF NEW LITERACIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New literacies have challenged all players in the educational enterprise in many different ways. Youth are now engaged in literacies that extend well beyond the safe and respected traditional texts that their parents experienced in school. In this research we analyze parents ' perceptions of the relative educational value of their children's different textual engagements both in and out of school. We find that parents employed a textual hierarchy of educational value with the traditional hard copy school textbook and literature at the top of the pyramid, and plastic virtual and visual texts at the bottom. These assessments are understood within a framework that employs the idea of safety to understand how parents navigate and negotiate the often risky literate engagements their children enjoy. This paper analyses data from a film-making project entitled A Lens on Community: Video Ensemble Process in a Rural Middle School. There were three general objectives in the project. First, the project sought to tap into energy surrounding new visual literacies in a school that had had little formal engagement with contemporary technologies and particularly, with film as a literary medium. Second, the project sought to engage educators and students critically with * The authors would like to acknowledge funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for financial support of the research upon which this writing is based. We would also like to thank the school board and school staff, parents and students for their cooperation and collaboration. Unfortunately, for reasons of confidentiality we are unable to name names specifically.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".