MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3144930132 · doi:10.1111/1467-9817.12361

The development and validation of the Teachers' Self‐Efficacy Beliefs for Literacy Instruction in the 21st Century (TBLI21c) scale: a pilot study

2021· article· en· W3144930132 on OpenAlexaff
Katia Ciampa, Tiffany L. Gallagher

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research in Reading · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiteracy, Media, and Education
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyLiteracyCLARITYScale (ratio)Mathematics educationConstruct validityReading (process)Construct (python library)Active listeningReading comprehensionPedagogyPsychometricsDevelopmental psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background This study presents the findings of the first administration of a revised Teachers' Sense of Efficacy for Literacy Instruction ( TSELI ) scale that reflects the changing landscape of 21st‐century literacy instruction. Items include such aspects as reading, writing, viewing, listening, communicating using visual, audible and digital materials, vocabulary, comprehension strategies, motivation, differentiated instruction, assessment, diversity culturally responsive teaching and professional literacy learning and leadership. Methods The survey was reviewed by a panel of seven experts in the field of reading and literacy instruction for content, construct and face validity and then field tested with 12 graduate students to assess the clarity of item wording and instructions, appropriateness of the response scale and ease of administration. The survey was then administered to 476 teacher candidates in two countries. Results The survey demonstrated moderate inter‐rater reliability (0.62) and very high internal reliability (0.95). The 42 items were factor analysed, which demonstrated construct validity and provided an eight‐factor scale. Teacher candidates reported having higher self‐efficacy regarding 21st‐century competencies and lower self‐efficacy in early literacy skills. Conclusions The findings revealed in this paper underscore the importance of measuring pre‐service and in‐service teacher efficacy for literacy instruction as it relates to contemporary 21st‐century literacies, given that the methods and tools addressed in the Teachers' Self‐Efficacy Beliefs for Literacy Instruction in the 21st Century ( TBLI21c ) scale are not reflected in previous literacy self‐efficacy instruments, such as reading, writing, viewing, listening, communicating using visual, audible and digital materials, comprehension strategies, motivation, differentiated instruction, diversity, assessment and professional literacy learning and leadership. Results suggest that the TBLI21c scale could be a reliable and useful tool to measure in‐service and pre‐service teacher efficacy for literacy instruction in the 21st century.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Research in ReadingSame topicLiteracy, Media, and EducationFrench-language works237,207