Using evidence-based reading strategies to develop teaching practices: a self-study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This self study investigates a senior high teacher’s use of evidence-based reading strategies and instruction to make changes to planning and teaching, with a focus on supporting students with diverse abilities to have success with reading. Self-study methodology allows teachers to examine their own practice to gain insight, and to grow as both an educator and a researcher. This process both facilitates change and contributes to the educational community. Data was collected through the primary use of written journals, alongside a research log, mind maps/concept maps, visual collages, and critical friend conversations. The outcome of the study provided knowledge for me to create small but meaningful change within my teaching and planning that emphasized the value of intent, purpose, and a foundation of knowledge when focusing on reading strategies and instruction. Graphic organizers, visual mapping tools, paraphrasing, summarizing, explicit instruction, and questioning were key strategies implemented. This study highlights the importance of intentional planning for reading instruction in secondary school classrooms, and emphasizes the value of self-study research for practicing teachers who want to pursue learning, focus on changes they believe in, and become better educators.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".