Modeling and the Gradual Release of Responsibility: What Does It Look Like in the Classroom?
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
Recent professional development efforts in literacy have highlighted the role of the teacher as a model for students using direct instruction. Direct instruction is a lesson methodology taught to teacher candidates. We developed a schematic to represent the confluence of evidence found in the research and analysis of several lesson planning templates in order to create a visual representation of the elements of instruction that could be used to plan lessons. Previous research has demonstrated that modeling was not used frequently in classrooms. We were interested in determining if teachers were still using modeling infrequently. To investigate this, we identified three questions we would pursue through action research and mixed methods of analysis in local classrooms. These questions focused on determining the amount of time spent modeling in classrooms and the actions used after modeling to determine the extent these actions were reflected in the research literature. We found that teachers are using modeling much more frequently than was found to be the case in the previous study, but that the instructional actions following modeling are often inconsistent with research literature conceptions. Key Words: direct instruction, modeling, gradual release of responsibility, models for teaching
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it