Bibliographic record
Abstract
Citation (2015), "List of Contributors", Video Reflection in Literacy Teacher Education and Development: Lessons from Research and Practice (Literacy Research, Practice and Evaluation, Vol. 5), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. ix-xi. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2048-045820150000005033 Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing Limited Copyright © 2015 Emerald Group Publishing Limited Kathleen Alley Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS, USA Poonam Arya Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA Celeste C. Bates Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA Denise Chapman Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Ming Ming Chiu Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA Tanya Christ Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA Theresa Deeney University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, USA Sophie Degener National Louis University, Chicago, IL, USA Cheryl Dozier University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, NY, US Mariam Jean Dreher University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA Mary Fahrenbruck New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USA Judith Franzak Salisbury University, Salisbury, MD, USA Ruth Freedman National Louis University, Chicago, IL, USA James V. Hoffman University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA Yang Hu Hunter College, CUNY, New York, NY, USA Koomi Kim New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USA James King University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA Riitta-Liisa Korkeamäki University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland Jennifer Lubke University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, TN, USA Beth Maloch University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA Anne McGill-Franzen University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA Mary B. McVee University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, NY, USA Evan Ortlieb Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia P. David Pearson University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA Madi Phillips National Louis University, Chicago, IL, USA Sari Räisänen University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland Tyler W. Rinker University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, NY, USA Ryan M. Rish Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, USA Cheryl Rosaen Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA Diane Salmon National Louis University, Chicago, IL, USA Lynn E. Shanahan University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, NY, USA Audra Slocum West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA Andrea L. Tochelli-Ward University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, NY, USA Jennifer Tuten Hunter College, CUNY, New York, NY, USA Sue Verlaan NBCT – Literacy Consultant, Huntsville, AL, USA Wolfram Verlaan University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL, USA Natalia Ward University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA Melissa Mosley Wetzel University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA Book Chapters Video Reflection in Literacy Teacher Education and Development: Lessons from Research and Practice Literacy Research, Practice and Evaluation Video Reflection in Literacy Teacher Education and Development: Lessons from Research and Practice Copyright Page List of Contributors About the Editors Introduction Part I: Models and Frameworks for Teacher Reflection The Potential of Video to Help Literacy Pre-Service Teachers Learn to Teach for Social Justice and Develop Culturally Responsive Instruction Insights into Inservice Teachers’ Video-Facilitated Reflection of Literacy Practices Constructing Successful Video Reflection Experiences in Practicum Settings Using the Gradual Release of Responsibility Model to Support Video Reflection with Preservice and Inservice Teachers A Video-Based Mentoring Tool for Cooperating Teachers Coaching Preservice Teachers: Supporting Reflection around Literacy Practice Zooming in and Out: Scaffolding the Use of Video for Inquiry and Reflection Using Teaching Videos in the Adaptive Cycles of Teaching Part II: Processes, Pragmatics, and Practices Using Video-Reflection with Pre-Service Teachers: A Cautionary Tale A Teacher’s Inner Voice Mediated by a Video Observation and Discussion in the Context of Change in Literacy Practices Spanning the Distance: Video Reflection as a Tool for Cultivating Literacy Coaches in Rural Contexts Video-Mediated Teacher Inquiry with Pre-Service English Teachers A Three-Pronged Approach to Video Reflection: Preparing Literacy Teachers of the Future Part III: Video in an Online World Pin it!: Maximizing the Benefits of Video Usage in a Preservice Teacher Classroom Using Pinterest Capturing Quality Practice: Annotated Video-Based Portfolios and Graduate Students’ Reflective Thinking “I am Amazed at How Differently I See Things”: Taking Ideas and Appropriating Language from Video Observations of Teaching Virtual Literacy Coaching
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 | 0.004 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.731 | 0.715 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".