Disrupting the Commonplace: Studying the pedagogies and practices of literacy teacher educators with a critical stance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the practices and pedagogies of six literacy teacher educators with a critical stance. Using the first dimension of the critical literacy framework (Lewison et al., 2008), Disrupting the Commonplace, the literacy teacher educators’ practices and pedagogies are analyzed and unpacked. This dimension of critical literacy practices focuses on seeing the everyday through a new lens, including our routines, habits, beliefs, and theories (Lewison et al., 2008). In particular, it requires “a step outside of one’s usual modes of perception and comprehension using new frames to understand experience” (p. 8). The six participants actualize a critical stance in their courses by using an expansive definition of literacy; presenting opportunities for their student teachers to unlearn; and integrating popular culture and media into their curriculum. The literacy teacher educators placed issues of equity at the core of their courses; they worked tirelessly to expand student teachers’ views on literacy, teaching, and learning. However, it is unreasonable to believe a single course can shift student teachers’ conceptions of literacy and teaching. If teacher education programs are committed to social justice education, student teachers must be immersed in a program with a consistent philosophy.
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 | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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".