Supporting Change in Literacy Instruction in Malawi
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
In this study, we examined the effectiveness of an innovative approach to literacy instruction in Malawi on teachers' perceptions, attitudes, and instructional practices. Two groups participated in the study: Treatment teachers received complementary teaching and learning materials, workshops, and directive coaching, and control teachers received no intervention. After this five-month intervention, treatment teachers were significantly more comfortable with their languages of instruction and were more positive about their teaching ability, beliefs about the learning materials in their classroom, and beliefs about the culture of reading in their communities than control teachers were. There were no significant differences between groups when we analyzed their teaching practices or the engagement of their students. The coaching model proved to be associated with changes in teachers' beliefs and perceptions on many of our variables. These findings suggest that the program under examination was successful in promoting the conditions for success (teacher beliefs and perceptions). Further, the findings suggest that the implementation of coaching was an important source of support in implementing changes.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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