A Multiple Case Study of Two Teachers’ Instructional Adaptations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scholars contend that effective teachers adapt their instruction to meet the particular needs of each student. However, little research has studied the ways in which teachers adapt their instruction or their reflections on these adaptations. This article describes a yearlong multiple case study focused on two teachers from different contexts: a Kindergarten teacher in a rural school in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States and a sixth-grade teacher in a suburban school in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. This research replicates previous studies of adaptive teaching. Two researchers used classroom observations, post-observation interviews, and artefacts to document these teachers’ instructional adaptations and their reflections on these adaptations. Findings demonstrate the complexity of classroom instruction and the metacognitive processes teachers need to succeed in this complex environment. This study has implications for policy, teacher education, and professional development. Les chercheurs affirment que les enseignants efficaces adaptent leur enseignement de sorte à répondre aux besoins particuliers de chaque élève. Toutefois, peu de recherche a porté sur les façons dont les enseignants le font ou sur leurs réflexions relatives à ces adaptations. Cet article décrit une étude de cas multiples qui a duré un an et a suivi des enseignants de contextes différents : un enseignant à la maternelle d’une école rurale dans le nord-ouest du Pacifique aux États-Unis et un enseignant en 6e dans une école de banlieue dans les états du centre du littoral de l’Atlantique des États-Unis. Cette recherche reproduit les études antérieures sur l’enseignement adapté. Pour recueillir les adaptations à l’enseignement et les réflexions des enseignants sur celles-ci, deux chercheurs ont eu recours à des observations en salle de classe, des entrevues après les observations et des artéfacts. Les résultats démontrent la complexité de l’enseignement en salle de classe et fait ressortir les processus métacognitifs dont ont besoin les enseignants afin de réussir dans ce milieu complexe. Cette étude a des retombées sur les politiques, la formation des enseignants et le développement professionnel.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".