Stories and identities in a "pedagogy of meaning": one teacher's self-study in three parts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This self-study, written in narrative form, considers the design of a “pedagogy of meaning” (Cooper, 2009) that supports children’s identity-construction, as the children uniquely “appear” in the classroom. The author shares this process with the children in her Grade 1 classroom. As part of the children’s “appearance” in the classroom, “voices” which have not often been heard come to be shared in meaningful/meaning-making ways. Also, in the course of this pedagogical design process, the author explores the construction of her own “teacher identities”. The study is theoretically inspired by the Reggio Emilia approach; in particular, the central tenet of the “image of the child” as competent, capable, and resourceful (Rinaldi, 1993). This is a postmodern image of the child brought into being through the process of telling and interpreting stories of past and present. This “image of the child” is utilized as a guiding concept as the author endeavours to conceptualize and enact her own interpretation of a pedagogy of meaning in her Grade 1 classroom context. A pedagogy of meaning is conceptualized as a relational and malleable construct negotiated between the teacher and children and among the children themselves, enriched by the participants’ individual and shared identities, contexts, and experiences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".