Participatory action research as praxis: Developing scientifically literate students through inquiry-based science instruction and guided reading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two grade six teachers, Sara and Colleen, and myself, Rhonda, a literacy coach, engaged in critical participatory action research (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005) to inquire into our grade six students’ declining performance in science. Our research questions were: How does guided reading impact students’ reading practices in science? How does our critical or praxis-based approach to professional learning impact our students as collaborative learners? At the time when we became a teacher researcher team, Sara had taught grade six for a few years at the school. Colleen was an experienced grade six teacher coming from another school, and I was an Elementary Language Arts Consultant leaving the district office to be the new assistant principal and literacy coach in the school. As a literacy coach, I shared planning, teaching and assessment responsibilities for science and English language arts with Sara and Colleen. I was also a part-time doctoral student in language and literacy, so Sara and Colleen asked me to share what I was learning in my studies by meeting regularly to read and talk about research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.054 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".