A Teacher’s Perspective on Grit and Student Success in a High School Physics Classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a high school classroom, there are many factors that may influence academic achievement. One such factor may be due to the grit of individual learners. While much of the literature related to grit is focused on deficit ideological elements, structural elements, which are often overlooked, may also be present and could impact a student’s ability to be ‘gritty’ and successful in school. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to understand, from a teacher’s perspective, whether these structural elements, in addition to deficit elements, also impact student achievement. This autoethnographic study explores the culture of grit and student success in relation to three former students enrolled in Grades 11 and/or 12 Physics as they progress in their coursework. While deficit ideological elements exist within my autoethnographic narratives, structural ideological elements also implicate crucial moments when a student’s grit and success either radically improved or declined. Consequently, for those who support learners, the argument put forth in this paper suggests that being mindful of structural circumstances is essential if educators are to use grit to reinforce achievement. Keywords: grit, student success, high school, physics, deficit ideology, structural ideology
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".