MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132980218

The impact of a tutoring program on teachers' development as literacy teachers

2004· dissertation· W7132980218 on OpenAlexaff
Mary Lynn Tessaro

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2004
Typedissertation
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Educational Reforms and Inequalities
Canadian institutionsBibliographical Society of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPracticumLiteracyContext (archaeology)Reading (process)General partnershipReflection (computer programming)Qualitative researchPerception
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is a qualitative inquiry concerning the impact of a tutoring program on student teachers' development as elementary school literacy teachers. Student teachers enrolled in a preservice education program tutored individual struggling literacy learners on a weekly basis as an extended fieldwork opportunity that differs from more traditional forms of practice teaching. A comprehensive review of the literature related to fieldwork sets the context for this particular type of experience. Prior to tutoring, the student teachers learned about current literacy theory on campus. Each student teacher then assessed, planned and taught an individual learner in an elementary school. Key research questions included: What did student teachers learn about becoming an effective literacy teacher through the tutoring experience? What were the student teachers' initial perceptions about literacy? In what ways were the knowledge and skills that were realized in the tutoring program different from those gained in the practicum setting? What were the benefits and challenges for the school/university partnership arising from involvement in the tutoring program? Using data such as in-depth interviews with six of the student teachers that participated in tutoring as well as artifacts such as assignments and reflection papers, it seems tutoring provides a valuable learning experience in helping student teachers forge theory/practice connections and move towards effective literacy teaching. Student teachers demonstrated learning in key areas such as assessment, reading and writing processes, meeting individual pupil needs, material selection, and literacy resources acquisition. They were able to implement a wide range of literacy strategies and evaluate the effectiveness of various strategies. A limitation of the study was the lack of opportunity for the tutors to engage in discussion with one another regarding issues such as planning instruction and meeting pupil needs.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.451 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicGlobal Educational Reforms and InequalitiesFrench-language works237,207