MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389068481 · doi:10.55016/ojs/ajer.v69i2.75043

Play and Literacy Learning in Grades 1 and 2: An Exploratory Study of Teacher Perspectives

2023· article· en· W4389068481 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Ronna Mosher, Kimberly Lenters, Harrison Boss

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Journal of Educational Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Digital Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLiteracyPedagogyHumanitiesPsychologySociologyMathematics educationArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Responding to concerns that play is at risk in the early years of education, this article investigates teachers’ current use of play in language and literacy instruction in Grade 1 and 2 Alberta classrooms. It addresses what teachers say they need to make play part of school-based language and literacy education. Survey findings show a recognition of contested views on the role of play in instruction yet a press for play as a meaningful pedagogy in the early elementary grades. The article contributes teachers’ perspectives on play in literacy teaching beyond preschool and kindergarten. It offers recommendations for conceptual, pragmatic, and research-focused supports that would allow teachers to leverage play in the development of children’s literacies. Keywords: play, literacy, play-based teaching, playful learning, elementary school En réponse aux préoccupations selon lesquelles le jeu est menacé dans les premières années scolaires, cet article porte sur l'utilisation actuelle du jeu par les enseignants dans l'enseignement de la langue et de la littératie dans les classes de première et deuxième année de l'Alberta. L’article s'intéresse à ce dont les enseignants disent avoir besoin pour intégrer le jeu dans l'enseignement de la langue et de la littératie à l'école. Les résultats de l'enquête montrent que les enseignants reconnaissent que leurs points de vue sur le rôle du jeu dans l'enseignement sont contestés, mais qu'ils insistent pour que le jeu soit une pédagogie significative dans les premières années de l'enseignement au primaire. L'article présente le point de vue des enseignants sur le jeu dans l'enseignement de la littératie au-delà de la prématernelle et de la maternelle. Il propose des recommandations pour un soutien conceptuel, pragmatique et axé sur la recherche qui permettrait aux enseignants de tirer parti du jeu dans le développement de la littératie chez les enfants. Mots clés : jeu, littératie, enseignement basé sur le jeu, apprentissage ludique, école primaire

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicChild Development and Digital TechnologyFrench-language works237,207