A Narrative Study About Teacher Knowledge and How It is Reflected in Pedagogical Choices, Practices, and Views When teaching Emergent Writing
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AbstractThis research investigated how teachers’ various forms of knowledge are reflected in their pedagogical views, practices, and choices when teaching emergent writing. Emergent writing is one of the most understudied areas of literacy with limited research regarding primary writing instruction. Prior to attending school, most young children demonstrate emergent writing skills that include marks, scribbles, drawings, letters and words. Development of emergent writing abilities contribute to student self-regulation, higher order thinking skills, and concept formation. Additionally, these skills are good predictors of later school success in reading and writing, as well as better opportunities in the workplace. This research embraced a wholistic perspective to honour teachers’ lived experiences and stories. A narrative approach was used. Data collection consisted of narrative interviews with four kindergarten teachers who taught in Ontario, Canada. Teachers were encouraged to share their stories and experiences when teaching emergent writing. Narratives were analyzed inductively to develop a better understanding about teacher knowledge and how it is reflected in daily practices when teaching emergent writing. In alignment with a social constructivism perspective, teacher narratives described a play-based classroom where daily peer interaction, rich multimodal and oral language opportunities were encouraged through a variety of learning centres that included an art table, a drama centre, a science touch table, as well as various other language activities. Teachers shared stories of drama centres that included pretend restaurants, a doctor’s office, and a post office, as well as props to re-enact classroom read-alouds. These meaningful activities supported independent student exploration and meaning making. Using a multi-layered view of language writing, and employing a deductive approach, I identified understandings and beliefs using Ivanič’s (2004) framework of six discourses of writing and learning to write. Findings of this second layer of analysis indicated that teachers viewed writing as multimodal. Their description of daily classroom contexts reflected beliefs and perspectives within five of the six discourses. The use of all six discourses was found in only one participant’s narrative. Teachers’ narratives often included elements of three or more discourses (that were sometimes conflicting) in the same writing event. A complex understanding of emergent writing was found in all narratives.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».