Teaching English in an age of literacy: a descriptive case study of teachers as curriculum decision-makers in an era of reform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an era of wide-scale educational reform, classroom teachers may find themselves awkwardly positioned among multiple and conflicting expectations. A review of the history of English as a discipline and as a secondary school subject since the middle of the 20th century points to the secondary school English classroom as a site of particular disruption in response to recent policy changes. This dissertation examines the influences of results-based policy curriculum, increased external accountability, and a high-stakes literacy test on a group of Ontario secondary school English teachers working in grade 9 or 10 classrooms in a single Ontario school district during the spring school semester of 2004. This qualitative study examines ways in which teachers negotiate among paradigms and inside---outside influences in order to make classroom curricular decisions. A collective case study included 5 focus groups and a purposive sample of 9 secondary school English teachers and it results in a snapshot look at teachers' work, decisions and responses to wide-scale reform. Teachers' responses to semi-structured interviews provide the primary data for analysis. Findings indicate that changes associated with mandated provincial polices are influencing teacher decision-making and interpersonal interactions. Teachers demonstrated both compliance and resistance to mandated policies, negotiating with policy curriculum in order to make space for a classroom curriculum that aligns with their own personal values, beliefs and conceptions of English as a school subject. The study also suggests that recent policy reforms may interact with deeply embedded historical and cultural factors both to impede the implementation of policy and to promote change in teachers' conceptualizations of the school subject.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".