Examining teachers' beliefs about and implementation of a balanced literacy framework
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
While many embrace balanced literacy as a framework for quality literacy instruction, the way in which teachers operationalise the tenets of balanced literacy can vary greatly. In the present study, 581 teachers in the United States completed questionnaires concerning: (a) their beliefs about literacy skills and literacy instructional strategies that are most essential to reading success; and (b) their implementation of balanced literacy instruction in their classrooms. Results reveal that teachers varied in their implementation of reading and writing routines, with teachers reporting participating less frequently in writing activities. Teachers' implementation of balanced literacy routines varied as a function of the grade level they taught, but not additional certifications or years of experience. In addition, teachers' participation in reading and writing routines was related to their literacy beliefs, particularly their belief in the importance of code‐based literacy skills.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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