Differentiating Instruction with Digital Storytelling While Making Connections to Critical Literacy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Incorporating digital storytelling activities into learning experiences for students not only engages students in acquisition of 21st century skills, but also provides teachers with opportunities to differentiate instruction. This paper describes a Digital Storytelling Workshop that matched diverse student learners with teacher candidates in creating digital stories, and the resulting investigation of how participation in the project impacted the ability of student learners to demonstrate critical literacy. Data sources included exit surveys, student interviews, researcher observational field notes, and student products from the workshop. Findings indicated that the digital story-making process engaged students in all levels of higher order thinking skills (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) and at least one component of critical literacy, identified by Wolk (2003), as advocacy, evaluating or solving real-world problems, or making reflective connections between classroom content and culture and/or society.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it