MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140022595 · doi:10.33524/cjar.v13i2.38

WHY AM I TEACHING THIS? INVESTIGATING THE TENSION BETWEEN MANDATED CURRICULUM AND TEACHER AUTONOMY

2012· article· en· W2140022595 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David Costello

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Action Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Education and Leadership Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSituatedPedagogyCurriculumAutonomyLiteracyQualitative researchReading (process)PerceptionPsychologyMathematics educationSociologyPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article shares the experience of a teacher investigating the tension between a mandated literacy program and his desire to teach in response to his perceptions of students’ needs. Qualitative teacher research methodology is used to study the impact of mandated literacy practices on teaching and learning; and to answer the question: how is my teaching situated within the literacy program? Data, collected through a research journal, were analyzed using a Foucauldian lens of discourse, and reading theory. This study unveils the mechanisms supporting mandates, and conflicts between theoretical and practical applications of mandated practices and the teacher’s instructional beliefs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.416
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.384
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.096 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Action ResearchSame topicTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesFrench-language works237,207