Reading and Equity in Teacher Education: An Exploratory Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reading is central to higher education, but requires increased pedagogical and research attention. Practice and knowledge gaps have created threats to equity, though the precise nature of the reading/equity nexus in higher education is unknown. The Reading Pedagogies of Equity Project, a professional learning program and study designed with teacher educators, sought to produce insights into equity and reading in higher education. Oriented through critical posthumanism and a speculative pedagogies of qualitative inquiry methodology, the research team generated data with nine teacher educator participants. Data sources included the program pedagogies, discussions, and artifacts, plus pre- and post-program interviews. Data were analyzed through a thinking with theory approach focused on entanglement, diffractive reading, and enacted agency. The study identified textual, contextual, pedagogical, and readerly (im)materialities in academic reading that (dis)able opportunities for equity and the processes for producing this knowledge. Findings are significant for educators wanting to promote equity in/through reading.
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.
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 | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it