MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2759303477 · doi:10.11575/ajer.v63i2.56349

Enhancing the Impact of Evidence-based Publications on K-12 ESL Teacher Practices

2017· article· en· W2759303477 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marilyn L. Abbott, Kent Lee, Marian J. Rossiter

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Calgary · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesProfessional developmentReading (process)PedagogyPsychologySchool teachersPolitical scienceLibrary scienceSociologyPhilosophyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reading of current research-informed publications is an essential component of teacher professional development that has the potential to lead to or reinforce the implementation of effective instructional practices. To our knowledge, no studies have examined kindergarten to grade 12 (K-12) ESL teacher engagement in professional reading related to the teaching and learning of ESL. Therefore, we conducted a survey of K-12 ESL teachers from four Canadian provinces to examine their reading practices. Results revealed that teachers mainly consulted professional newsletter articles to address classroom-related issues and indicated that key stakeholders (e.g., teachers’ associations, school districts, and school principals) do little to enhance teachers’ reading of TESL-related publications. Several recommendations to increase teacher reading engagement are included. La lecture de publications courantes fondées sur la recherche constitue une composante essentielle du développement professionnel des enseignants et une qui a le potentiel d’entrainer la mise en œuvre de pratiques pédagogiques efficaces, ou de renforcer celles-ci. Nous ne connaissons aucune étude ayant examiné l’implication des enseignants K-12 dans la lecture de revues et d’ouvrages spécialisés portant sur l’enseignement et l’apprentissage en ALS. Nous avons donc entrepris une enquête auprès d’enseignants K-12 d’ALS dans quatre provinces canadiennes pour connaitre leurs pratiques quant à la lecture. Les résultats indiquent que les enseignants consultaient surtout des articles de bulletins professionnels pour aborder des questions liées à leur pratique. Les enseignants ont également mentionné que les intervenants principaux (par ex. les associations d’enseignants, les districts scolaires et les directeurs d’école) faisaient peu pour encourager la lecture par les enseignants de publications portant sur l’ALS. Nous présentons plusieurs recommandations pour motiver les enseignants à la lecture.

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)0.226
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.573
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.226
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2260.573
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0220.016
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0190.012
Open science0.0040.012
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.251 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of CalgarySame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207