Literacy Learning in the 21st Century: An Observational Study of a Resource Rich Grade 1 Class
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This observational study examines teacher pedagogy and student literacy practices in a 21st century resource rich Grade 1 classroom in order to gain insight into the forms, functions, tools, topics and contexts involved in students’ literacy experiences for boys of access and privilege. Teacher’s pedagogical choices were examined to understand how the teacher created learning opportunities based on her beliefs about texts and student identities and how her pedagogical choices were influenced by the curriculum, parents and the nature of schooling. Case study methodology was used in order to examine these complex relationships. Both quantitative and qualitative data was collected and analyzed in the form of reading and writing profiles, collection of assessment data and artefacts, classroom observations, parent questionnaires, interviews with teacher and students and data related to the texts used in the classroom. This study is significant because it demonstrates that, in a school of access and privilege, literacy is taught in both traditional and new ways and the layering of these beliefs about literacy create meaningful learning experiences for the boys. Teacher pedagogy draws on teacher and student beliefs, knowledge and identities but is also influenced by traditional assumptions about “what the boys need to learn” in Grade 1. Theoretical frameworks that inform analysis in this research include multiliteracies (New London Group [NLG], 1996), multimodality (Kress, 2000), literacy as social practice (Barton & Hamilton, 2000) and social constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978). These frameworks support an understanding of students’ literacy practices and the rationale behind the pedagogical choices made by the teacher as the students and teacher collaborate, communicate and engage in literacy practices around multimodal texts. Implications include shaping future teacher practice, goals for 21st century curriculum development and new conceptions around literacy learning practices that influence how young students contribute to and experience literacy in 21st century classrooms.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".