Teachers’ Discourses on Teaching Students of Elementary School English Literacy Development in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores teachers’ discourses on teaching English Literacy Develop- ment (ELD) students in mainstream elementary school classrooms through an examination of their philosophies of teaching and reflections on literacy. The find- ings are based on empirical qualitative data collected from interviews with two English-as-a-second language (ESL)/ELD teachers in two school boards in On- tario. Both participants discussed the importance of developing awareness of and including in classes students’ learning and language experiences from outside the formal education system. Challenges perceived in the school communities in- cluded the structure of schooling, the demands of the curriculum, the incorpora- tion of students’ unwritten first languages, and negative views of ELD students.Cet article se penche sur la philosophie d’enseignement et les réflexions sur la lit- tératie telles qu’elles découlent des discours d’enseignants évoquant l’enseigne- ment, dans des salles de classe régulières à l’élémentaire, à des élèves en perfectionnement de l’anglais. Les résultats reposent sur des données empiriques qualitatives tirées d’entrevues auprès de deux enseignants en anglais langue sec- onde et en perfectionnement de l’anglais dans deux conseils scolaires en Ontario. Les deux participants ont discuté de l’importance de faire connaitre les expéri- ences liées à la langue et à l’apprentissage que vivent les élèves à l’extérieur du système d’éducation formel et de les intégrer aux cours. Parmi les défis au sein des communautés scolaires, on a évoqué la structure de la formation scolaire, les exigences des programmes d’études, la prise en compte des langues maternelles non-écrites des élèves et les perceptions négatives des élèves en perfectionnement de l’anglais.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".