Intersections of teacher noticing and culturally sustaining pedagogy:<scp>A</scp>conceptual framework to inform the design of teacher learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Teacher noticing scholars are just beginning to explore how to support noticing that is responsive to students' cultural resources. The theoretical basis of the teacher noticing literature affords scholars a range of paths for understanding student resources, only some of which are described in the literature. In this article, we offer a conceptual model showing how the theoretical roots related to teacher noticing and responsive teaching (N/RT) are closely aligned with theories foundational to culturally sustaining pedagogy (CSP). We then offer an illustration of teachers participating in a video club specifically designed to support noticing students' disciplinary thinking in science—and show how the teachers' talk positioned them to see the cultural foundations of student learning, a perspective that lays the groundwork for teachers to teach in culturally sustaining ways. With an eye to developing future designs of video clubs that highlight disciplinary thinking in both mathematics and science alongside cultural resources—and the intersections therein—in this article, we begin the foundational work of better understanding the theoretical connections across both cultural and disciplinary ways of seeing, knowing, and responding.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".