Teachers' Responses to Educational Research: A Hermeneutic Inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation explores teachers' responses to educational research. The study is situated in the growing area of inquiry known as knowledge mobilization. The existing literature shows that teachers face a variety of barriers to reading and utilizing educational research, including insufficient institutional support and a lack of time. Other challenges come with research itself. For instance, Denzin and Lincoln (2005) describe a triple crisis of representation, legitimation, and praxis in research. First, it is not possible for the researcher to sufficiently capture the lived experiences of research-participants. Second, the validity of research findings is always contested. Third, it is a challenge to make ethical choices and act upon them. These three crises constitute the conceptual framework for understanding how teachers address them while reading educational research. Twelve in-service language teachers joined a wiki-based discussion forum, whose purpose was to form a community of readers built upon the principles of reader-response criticism. The participants then read a peer-reviewed journal article and exchanged opinions through threaded discussions. These discussions were the first source of data for this study. The second source of data was individual in-depth interviews conducted with the participants at the end of the wiki project. The collection and interpretation of data were guided by Hans-Georg Gadamerâ s philosophical hermeneutics. In this dissertation, I present a number of ways of reading that the participants employed in their interpretations of the research text. Their ways of reading are discussed as a recognitive approach to the crisis of representation, an interpretive-ecological approach to the crisis of legitimation, and an imaginative-ethical approach to the crisis of praxis. Based on the insights gleaned from these ways of reading, I propose that the field of knowledge mobilization take an audience-oriented approach to disseminating and utilizing educational research.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.008 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".