Bibliographic record
Abstract
Working with a group of Alberta Grade 1 and 2 teachers we have observed and heard described several of the complexities they face in practicing well amidst multiple and competing dimensions of contemporary literacy instruction. The outcomes-driven machinery of their provincial context, their school district’s system for communicating classroom assessments, and the increasing dominance of synthetic phonics are factors the teachers note as constraining their knowledge, skills, and ways of being/doing, and that of their students. When these material expectations are positioned against other commitments to literacy education and diverse ways of being/becoming literate they both intend a certain future and serve as reminders of literacy education’s philosophical and practical “trouble without end” (Tsing, 2015, p. 2). Conceptualizing instructional contexts and practices as research assemblages, the study in which this paper is based investigates how early elementary teachers work at, with, and within the current conditionings of school-based literacy practices. Drawing on teacher interviews, photographs from within literacy teaching and learning situations (Snaza, 2019), and extended observations with a Grade 1 French Immersion teacher and class, the purpose of this paper is to explore liveable possibilities in reading, writing, and language instruction for the “right now” of literacy education (Kuby et al., 2019). Focusing on examples in which teachers seek “and…and…and…” pedagogies (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, p. 25) our purpose is not to settle the troubled waters of literacy education but to trace contours of possibility as teachers encounter literacy education’s boxes and boundaries and exceed their confines. We follow teachers’ material and social participation in curricular attentions to affect and cultivations of newness as a practice of care for and curiosity about a shared world in early elementary literacy instruction.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".