Teachers' Experiences in Implementing the School Literacy Movement (GLS): An Investigation of Junior High School Literacy Programs in Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the experiences of junior secondary school teachers in Indonesia who have implemented the School Literacy Movement (GLS). The study focuses on teachers' perceptions of GLS, its implementation, and its challenges. This study used a phenomenological approach involving 20 teachers to share their insights on the research topic. Data analysis was conducted through a qualitative research paradigm using ATLAS.ti 9 software. The tool facilitated the study of participants' transcripts and documentation, enabling the verbal expression of essential phrases or sentences, the identification of meanings and themes, and the combination of these elements into a comprehensive and insightful description. This study found that teachers implemented incomplete stages of GLS, driven by their limited perception of the program, which focused more on general reading skills. Their planning and implementation of GLS was superficial, and they faced significant issues such as time, evaluation, teacher workload, limited interaction or lack of training, and low student interest in reading. Challenges include limited learning resources and access and an unsupportive environment, facilities, and infrastructure
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".