MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145174117 · doi:10.26522/brocked.v22i1.308

Surfacing the Assumptions: Pursuing Critical Literacy and Social Justice in Preservice Teacher Education

2012· article· en· W2145174117 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lorayne Robertson, Janette Hughes

Bibliographic record

VenueBrock Education Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiteracy, Media, and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformative learningLiteracyPedagogyCritical literacyAffordanceTeacher educationSociologySocial justiceDigital literacyMathematics educationPsychologyThe artsSocial sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper outlines a four-year study of a preservice education course based on a socioconstructivist research framework. The preservice English Language Arts course focuses on critical literacy and teaching for social justice while employing digital technologies.The research study examines two concepts across all aspects of the course: 1) new literacies and multiliteracies; and 2) technology-supported transformative pedagogy for social and educational change. While the authors originally undertook the study to evaluate separate assignments of the course, the lens of the two themes has provided an opportunity for a scholarly review of their teaching practices. Research data include three course assignments over a 2-year period; an open-ended survey; and focus group and individual interviews with pre-service teachers. The authors discuss some of the affordances, challenges, and learnings associated with preparing teachers to teach critical literacy in a digital age. They also consider the development of critical literacy skills which encourage preservice teachers to bring their literacy histories and assumptions to the surface, examine them critically, and consider social justice alternatives.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrock Education JournalSame topicLiteracy, Media, and EducationFrench-language works237,207