Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this qualitative study was to gain a better understanding of in-service teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding reading instruction in the Quebec English school system. Research in the area of reading instruction typically casts teachers as lacking the prerequisite knowledge to effectively teach reading instruction or employing teaching practices which do not reflect what is recommended by the research. English Language Arts and Resource Teachers and Pedagogical Consultants, from Quebec’s anglophone school boards were invited to complete a survey where they were asked to rate comments pertaining to beliefs and practices for reading instruction as well as provide open-ended responses; fifty-seven responded. Survey participants were invited to participate in follow-up focus group discussion sessions regarding beliefs and practices for teaching 1) oral language development and comprehension instruction; 2) phonological and phonemic awareness instruction; 3) word reading instruction. Eleven teachers participated in the series of four discussion sessions and completed a post- session-survey. Over the course of 11 weeks, data was collected through the pre- and post- focus group surveys, recording of the online focus group discussion sessions and field journal notes. The findings revealed that in-service educators believe that there is a need for more guidance, collaboration and alignment in reading instruction in Quebec English schools. This research provided the educator-researcher with an opportunity to reflect on their own experiences while also creating a space for Quebec teachers to engage in collective reflection regarding their beliefs and practices regarding reading instruction within the Quebec education system. The thesis concludes with recommendations for educational leaders and policymakers on how to best support reading instruction to enhance literacy outcomes for all students
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".