The impact of a tutoring program on teachers' development as literacy teachers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it