MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413616345 · doi:10.37119/ojs2025.v30i2.847

Collaborating with Critical Friends: Exploring Picture Books Through Self-study in Secondary and Post-Secondary Classrooms

2025· article· en· W4413616345 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Carolyn Clarke, Evan T. Robinson, Ellen Carter, Jo Anne Broders

Bibliographic record

Venuein education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiteracy, Media, and Education
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationPsychologySociologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this critical self-study, four educators located in two Canadian provinces in both secondary and post-secondary institutions investigated their pedagogical practices of using picture books as teaching tools. By exploring the intersection of critical friends and collaborative learning, we investigated how this synthesis enhanced teacher self-study practices and offered insights into effective strategies for professional learning in educational settings. Through self-study, we considered our use of picture books, our current personal and professional libraries, and our learning and growth from engagement in collaborative self-study with colleagues. This self-study revealed three critical findings: 1) the banning of books within educational settings, 2) the tendency of teachers to opt for books perceived as safe choices, and 3) the growing recognition amongst educators of the importance of selecting literature that reflects the diversity of individuals within the classroom. Implications for educators include exploring both the benefits of critical friendship in collaborative learning communities and teacher professional learning (TPL) opportunities to focus on equity and inclusion. Keywords: collaborative self-study, critical friends, teacher education, critical literacy, picture books, inclusion

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuein educationSame topicLiteracy, Media, and EducationFrench-language works237,207