Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Children who learn to read fluently are more likely to experience academic success. Many youngsters however fail to meet literacy, learning outcomes. This chapter describes a study involving children in grade three, labelled as struggling readers. Using narrative inquiry as the research methodology, we worked in partnership with the principal and classroom teacher to co-design a study including a structured literacy intervention. Narrative inquiry methodology was utilized because it supports the collection of rich data (stories). Using the narrative inquiry framework of commonplaces: temporality, sociality and place, the research was designed, lived out, analyzed, and reported. The methodology also provided a framework for dealing with ethical challenges encountered. Our goal was to come alongside children, families and teachers through time to deepen understandings of how they experienced learning to read and reading remediation. We were interested in understanding efforts to shift away from struggling reader identity stories. Included is an overall narrative of the study and participant and researcher stories. Furthermore, researcher and participant artwork and artifacts are embedded because they provide nuances beyond words on the page. We attended a First Nation’s in-community school, two mornings per week over five-months. Our plan had been to conduct the research over a two-year period, following the children from grade three to four. The plan, however, was interrupted by the global pandemic and related restrictions on school access.
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 | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".