Reading, Writing and Pedagogy: The Impact of Ontario Education Faculties' P/J Programs on Graduates' Knowledge and Ability to Teach
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of Ontario’s Primary/Junior teacher preparation programs on graduates’ knowledge and ability to apply what they know about literacy education. The research examined the content of the programs, the extent to which this content reflected evidence-based components of literacy instruction, and the degree of variability across programs. A range of strategies including self-reporting by graduates, interviews, and reviews of course materials (e.g., course outlines, course topic schedules, reading lists) were used to examine the breadth and depth of what was covered in the required literacy courses. A proportional sample of 210 graduates representing all nine English-speaking faculties of education in Ontario completed surveys and submitted course materials. Twenty-nine of these also participated in in-depth interviews. Interviewees were asked to reflect upon their understanding and ability to apply what they had learned, as well as to offer their impressions of their programs and to discuss their personal feelings of preparedness to teach literacy. Quantitative and qualitative research methods were used to describe and summarize findings. Process/Outcome Matrices revealed various themes. In summary, faculty literacy programs varied greatly with respect to both length and content. Course materials and descriptions from graduates also suggested that variability across sections within programs was as great as that across programs. Although courses covered theories of child development they generally lacked a theoretical framework for literacy instruction. Moreover, many respondents reported learning little about how to teach reading and writing. Such responses were more prevalent in certain programs. Many graduates believed that explicit instruction is a necessary component of “good” literacy teaching, however, most graduates were not able to demonstrate an understanding of the complexities of language and literacy, and many could not describe how to implement effective literacy instruction, or to address the diverse needs of students. Recommendations include: lengthening the required faculty literacy courses in order to provide more breadth and depth of coverage; refining the manner in which instruction in literacy education is provided at faculties; increasing the vigilance with which governing bodies oversee faculty literacy course content; and improving practicum placement experiences.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».