No Walls, no problems? Exploring practice related challenges experienced by teachers in a 21st century open-concept school
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This case study explores the challenges to practice experienced by nine educators working within contemporary open-concept elementary school. Data was collected through observations of nine teachers working within two distinct learning communities (one ranging from grades 3-5 and the other from grades 6-8) within one newly constructed K???8 elementary school in. Semi-structured interviews with teachers were also conducted to better understand teachers??? aspirations and intentions for their practice and the challenges and obstacles they have experienced thus far. Teachers expressed and demonstrated over the course of the study that collaborative work is essential, both because of the physical design of the space as well as in overcoming novel challenges. One common challenges experienced in this case was the limitations to pedagogical change imposed by traditional school routines and social structures. The findings from this study suggest that further research is needed to understand best practices for teaching in these spaces and how these practices can be shared with both in-service and pre-service educators to support their success in open-concept learning environments.
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 | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".