Participating, Learning, Changing: Literacy Research in Practice in Alberta
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Towards the end of an Alberta literacy research in practice project, a participant commented: ... research--I assumed I couldn't understand a word they said. Now I know I can talk about it, ... I have confidence in how I understand it. I'm not afraid of research; I used to be afraid, but now I am interested and excited. Like others in the project, this participant previously viewed research as a world apart from her daily work in a literacy program. By reading research reports, talking with others about research, and conducting research herself, she began to embrace the possibilities of research in practice. Encouraging and supporting research in practice were core aims of the Alberta-based Participatory Approaches in Adult Literacy Education/Research in Practice (PAALE/RiP) Project. Through this project, six literacy educators, including me, initiated participatory approaches projects with groups of adult learners and conducted research about the projects. We learned about participatory approaches, about our practices and about ourselves. Seeds and Roots The Alberta research in practice projects came about through a series of opportunities. My interest in the concept of research in practice was seeded at a National Literacy Secretariat conversation about literacy research policy, held in Ottawa in 1996. I was inspired by discussions about supporting literacy practitioners and learners to conduct research themselves. This interest was shared by Yvon Laberge, an Edmonton-based literacy researcher who also attended the policy conversation. Yvon and I met to imagine ways to encourage practitioner research in Alberta. Through consultation with colleagues in other provinces, we found an interest in research in practice and identified barriers to practitioners engaging in research. This led to a fall 1997 seminar in Edmonton where 18 practitioners and researchers from across Canada shared ideas and set some directions for literacy research in practice.(2) The seminar was also an opportunity to develop relationships, an important step in building a research in practice network. The PAALE/RiP Project The Learning Centre and the University of Alberta Faculty of Education initiated the PAALE/RiP Project in 1998. The project built on participatory experiences at the Learning Centre and responded to interests in participatory approaches among Alberta literacy educators and learners. It also incorporated ideas from the previous research in practice activities by supporting practitioners to engage in research. The six who participated in the project were from urban and rural communities across Alberta. Grace Malicky, who was then Associate Dean of Research at the University of Alberta Faculty of Education, agreed to be a research facilitator for the project. Grace had a long-standing interest in adult literacy and a commitment to supporting research and practice. The university contributed Grace's time and she arranged for other university contributions, including provision of an online graduate level course that we co-facilitated. The PAALE/RiP project participants enrolled in the course, along with four graduate students. The course included a set of modules about participatory approaches and another set about research. Course discussion and communication was carried out through a computer-based conferencing system and two face-to-face meetings. By the end of the course, PAALE/RiP project members had initiated participatory approaches projects and related research with groups of adult learners. Research topics included using themes to enhance cultural knowledge, benefits of learner participation, problem solving in a group, sharing facilitating roles with learners and sharing power. One study, initiated on the topic of needs assessment, led to learning why adults don't enroll in programs. Research approaches, which varied according to topics and contexts, included practitioner research, action research and participatory action research (Malicky, 2000). …
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it