MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414266624 · doi:10.1080/19404158.2025.2553501

Early outcomes of a structured literacy implementation across a school system: the Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn Catalyst program

2025· article· en· W4414266624 on OpenAlexaff
Tanya Serry, Jennifer Buckingham, Pamela Snow, Lorraine Hammond, Kym Simoncini, Tina Daniel

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Learning Difficulties · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health Outcomes
FundersSnow Foundation
KeywordsReading (process)LiteracyIntervention (counseling)Professional developmentProfessional learning communityBest practiceFaculty developmentEmergent literacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although professional learning is the main approach for improving teacher knowledge, little evidence exists for its effectiveness in changing practice and improving student outcomes. One possible explanation is poor alignment between professional learning and classroom practice. In this paper, we describe a system-wide approach to changing teacher knowledge and reading pedagogy. Classroom teachers (n = 199) across 43 schools engaged in professional learning on contemporary science of learning and training in the use of published systematic and explicit reading instruction programs. Following the intervention, students’ word reading data revealed that the percentage of students requiring support post intervention had significantly decreased and video samples of teachers’ practice showed adoption of practices aligned with explicit instruction. Focus-group themes reflected considerable perceived growth in teacher knowledge and practice resulting from the intervention. Our study provides preliminary support for the effectiveness and efficiency of system-level change to reading pedagogy.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.393 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of Learning DifficultiesSame topicEducation Systems and PolicyFrench-language works237,207