MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6992930119

A Narrative Study About Teacher Knowledge and How It is Reflected in Pedagogical Choices, Practices, and Views When teaching Emergent Writing

2021· dissertation· W6992930119 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2021
Typedissertation
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWriting and Handwriting Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeDramaSocial constructivismLiteracyReading (process)Constructivism (international relations)Teaching methodMeaning (existential)Variety (cybernetics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractThis research investigated how teachers’ various forms of knowledge are reflected in their pedagogical views, practices, and choices when teaching emergent writing. Emergent writing is one of the most understudied areas of literacy with limited research regarding primary writing instruction. Prior to attending school, most young children demonstrate emergent writing skills that include marks, scribbles, drawings, letters and words. Development of emergent writing abilities contribute to student self-regulation, higher order thinking skills, and concept formation. Additionally, these skills are good predictors of later school success in reading and writing, as well as better opportunities in the workplace. This research embraced a wholistic perspective to honour teachers’ lived experiences and stories. A narrative approach was used. Data collection consisted of narrative interviews with four kindergarten teachers who taught in Ontario, Canada. Teachers were encouraged to share their stories and experiences when teaching emergent writing. Narratives were analyzed inductively to develop a better understanding about teacher knowledge and how it is reflected in daily practices when teaching emergent writing. In alignment with a social constructivism perspective, teacher narratives described a play-based classroom where daily peer interaction, rich multimodal and oral language opportunities were encouraged through a variety of learning centres that included an art table, a drama centre, a science touch table, as well as various other language activities. Teachers shared stories of drama centres that included pretend restaurants, a doctor’s office, and a post office, as well as props to re-enact classroom read-alouds. These meaningful activities supported independent student exploration and meaning making. Using a multi-layered view of language writing, and employing a deductive approach, I identified understandings and beliefs using Ivanič’s (2004) framework of six discourses of writing and learning to write. Findings of this second layer of analysis indicated that teachers viewed writing as multimodal. Their description of daily classroom contexts reflected beliefs and perspectives within five of the six discourses. The use of all six discourses was found in only one participant’s narrative. Teachers’ narratives often included elements of three or more discourses (that were sometimes conflicting) in the same writing event. A complex understanding of emergent writing was found in all narratives.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicWriting and Handwriting EducationFrench-language works237,207