Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investigating the Practices of Literacy Teacher Educators Doctor of Philosophy 2017 Belinda Longe Graduate Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning University of Toronto Abstract This research investigated the practices of six literacy teacher educators and explored the influences on their teaching practices in their literacy courses. This qualitative case study involved two interviews for each participant and classroom observations for some of the participants over a three-year period. Four main findings emerged from this research. First, participants’ vision for teaching, and their vision for teaching literacy was not static. The participants’ visions evolved over time and was influenced by their teaching and research experiences. Second, the participants emphasized continuous learning as an integral part of their vision, both for themselves and for their student teachers. They recognized that in their role as literacy teacher educators, a commitment to on-going learning was essential and fostering that commitment to life-long learning in their student teachers was equally important. Third, the participants had a range of pedagogical approaches that they implemented, although there were some approaches that were common across participants. Fourth, the participants focused on infusing components of balanced literacy into their literacy course and many drew on children’s and young adult literature as a springboard for teaching literacy concepts. The analysis of the data includes a discussion of the conceptual framework for the study and gives a brief overview of the interconnectedness of the concepts of social constructivism, vision for teaching literacy, and the elements of a pedagogy of teacher education. Implications for literacy teacher educators include developing literacy courses that aim to broaden student teachers’ notion of what counts as literacy. Other implications include encouraging literacy teacher educators to remain responsive and adaptive in their literacy teaching, and creating opportunities for literacy teacher educators to regularly review, participate, and conduct scholarly research in the field of literacy teacher education, which could inform and improve their practice.
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 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".