The Past, the Present, and the Practice: An Exploration of the Relationship between Beginning Teachers' Childhood Literacy Experiences and their Literacy Teaching Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This research investigated the influence of the childhood literacy learning experiences of 6 beginning elementary teachers on their literacy teaching practice. This qualitative case study employed 5 interviews and classroom observations of each participant over the first 3 years of his or her teaching. Three main findings emerged from the research. First, participants’ early literacy experiences shaped their identity as students. The participants’ images of themselves as students, in turn, influenced their images of themselves as teachers. Second, the participants’ early literacy learning experiences influenced the types of literacy environments and literacy activities that they provided for their students. Participants employed teaching approaches that had worked for them, or that they believed would have worked for them as students. Third, participants’ early literacy experiences influenced how they understood their students’ learning. The participants who had struggled as students were more focused on detecting and addressing the needs of their students who struggled. Implications for school literacy teaching include understanding and valuing the literacy knowledge and skills that young children bring to school and systematically addressing the needs of students who struggle with school literacy. Implications for preservice teacher education in literacy include an increased focus on supporting student teachers to reflect on how their early literacy learning affects their attitudes and assumptions about learning and teaching, more instruction on how to address the needs of struggling literacy learners, and the provision of a coherent teacher education program that combines theory and practice more effectively. Implications for in-service teacher education in literacy include providing induction programs that are tailored to meet the needs of individual beginning teachers, an expanded range of professional development options, and ongoing opportunities to engage in effective reflective practice. Implications for further research include investigations of the influence of early literacy learning on student achievement and on literacy teacher educators’ practice.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".