Constituting the Identity of an Elementary School Teacher in the 21st Century World of Teaching and Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study uses teacher identity as a lens to explore how teachers make sense of their work and constituteprofessional identities in the often complex world of teaching and learning. Three teachers who completed thesame teacher preparation program and taught in the same school district were observed and interviewed for thestudy in 2009-2010. A multiple case methodology was used to explore the question: How do teachers who gothrough the same teacher preparation program and teach in the same school district constitute their professionalidentities?Findings indicate that school and district mandates have a strong influence in shaping teacher identities becausethese mandates appeared to either limit or distract teacher reflective practices. It was found that teachers caughtup in the logic of the mandated curricular and assessments were less likely to use constructivist frameworks tounderstand student perspectives or to connect with the lived experiences of their students. On the other hand, itwas found if a teacher was engaged in critical inquiry about teaching and learning, that teacher was likely to usemultiple assessment strategies to understand students, and was likely to engage student learning throughopen-ended, classroom conversations.We concluded that since a teacher is the single most important factor affecting student achievement, schooldistricts should be forums for continuous teacher learning. The goal for such learning should be to createadaptive experts or – teachers who continually expand the breadth and depth of their expertise. Additionally,such learning should be both practice –centered and inquiry oriented.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".