LOOKING BACKWARDS, LOOKING FORWARDS: A CONSIDERATION OF THE FOIBLES OF ACTION RESEARCH WITHIN TEACHER WORK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This backward-looking reflection, which stems from experiences of an action research project with teachers, begins with an overview of current perspectives on action research in education settings. Significant details of the project are described to provide context for identification and discussion of the strengths and weaknesses relating to action research encountered by the author. Strengths include collegiality, dedicated time and space, facilitation and transparency and weaknesses discussed are issues of emancipation, the role of the researcher/facilitator, locus of power, data collection, professional development and teacher talk are discussed. The author attempts to orient both the methodology and the practical aspects of her action research experiences as a way to prepare for future research endeavors.
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 | 0.258 | 0.205 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.159 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.052 | 0.056 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.026 |
| 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".