MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150370757 · doi:10.3102/0013189x09332373

The ISI Classroom Observation System: Examining the Literacy Instruction Provided to Individual Students

2009· article· en· W2150370757 on OpenAlexaff
Carol McDonald Connor, Frederick J. Morrison, Barry Fishman, Claire Cameron Ponitz, Stephanie Glasney, Phyllis Underwood, Shayne B. Piasta, Elizabeth Coyne Crowe, Christopher Schatschneider

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational Researcher · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsEducation and Early Childhood Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationPsychologyMathematics educationLiteracyCoding (social sciences)Context (archaeology)Teaching methodLearning environmentClassroom managementAcademic achievementPedagogyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Individualizing Student Instruction (ISI) classroom observation and coding system is designed to provide a detailed picture of the classroom environment at the level of the individual student. Using a multidimensional conceptualization of the classroom environment, foundational elements (teacher warmth and responsiveness to students, classroom management) and instructional elements (teacher-child interactions, context, and content) are described. The authors have used the ISI system to document that children who share the same classroom have very different learning opportunities, that instruction occurs through interactions among teachers and students, and that the effect of this instruction depends on children’s language and literacy skills. This means that what is effective for one child may be ineffective for another with different skills. With improving classroom observation systems, the dynamics of the complex classroom environment as it affects student learning can be better understood.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations165
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducational ResearcherSame topicEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207