Beyond initial transition: An international examination of the complex work of experienced literacy/english teacher educators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports on a study of 21 mid‐career and senior literacy/English teacher educators in four countries: Canada, the United States (), the United Kingdom (), and Australia. Three main themes are discussed: identity (re)construction; knowledge development (e.g. of pedagogy; current literacy practices); and reconceptualisation of their work (courses and research). The literacy/English teacher educators had moved beyond the struggles of novice teacher educators; however, they still experienced a number of tensions. They had moved beyond identifying with and as a classroom teacher but felt that they needed to remain connected to teachers because their research is conducted in schools. They still felt less valued by their colleagues who were not actively involved in teacher education, not because they were novices, but because of their close involvement in schools. They found communities of literacy/English teacher educators beyond their university. All argued that they must continue to expand their knowledge in a number of areas but they see their continuous growth as a strength not a short‐coming. By mid‐career many created a synergy among their research, teaching, and service.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".