What I'm doing is really working in the language arts with the kids, teacher knowledge, teacher change, and the construction of teaching practice for reading and writing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The educational change that makes the most difference to student outcomes is the instructional change that occurs in the practice of the classroom teacher. New ideas in education influence innovative practice and new curricular methods before they are implemented in classrooms. This study examined how such curricular changes have made their way into the teaching of reading and writing in upper elementary classrooms--grades three to six--by a retrospective examination of the teaching histories, the thinking, and reflections on change, of twelve long-service teachers (and one first-year teacher) and their current responses to demands for change. Two eras of instructional change in the language arts in Manitoba were of interest: the move to whole language instruction in reading from the late 1970's to the late 1980's; and the move to process writing methods from the late 1980's to the mid 1990's. Teacher interviews were audiotaped and the transcripts of interviews analyzed for several themes: the nature of teacher knowledge and its acquisition; the influence of personal reading and writing experiences on teachers' practice; underlying theories of literacy acquisition; beliefs about literacy learning and instruction; and the testing and adoption of new instructional ideas. Analysis of the interview data yielded the following conclusions: (1) The teachers' valued practical methods o er theory in relation to their practice in teaching reading and writing. (2) The teachers valued practical knowledge that they had gained through classroom teaching experience. (3) These teachers' own, widely varying experiences as readers and writers were the greatest influences in shaping their teaching practices in reading and writing. (4) The teachers' beliefs about reading and writing acquisition were approaching current ideas in the field. They have adopted some but not all of the essential practices in whole language and process writing instruction. (5) The teachers did not describe recent changes in theories of language and literacy and relate them to reading and writing instruction. They described changes that they have implemented in methods of instruction. (6) They have made changes where they have been able to make practical trials of new methods that they thought likely to succeed. (7) Their preferred source of ideas for change was their own experience and some practical trials in collaboration with colleagues and students. Implications for teacher education and professional development are also explored.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".