Bibliographic record
Abstract
MASTER TEACHERThis column features a brief reflection on pioneering professional development options for teachers of children's literature, a description of some of our favorite class sessions, and an invitation to share your own favorite classes via CLA website.IT HAS BEEN TWO DECADES since a handful of professors of children's literature, attending a National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) dinner event, chatted about their teaching challenges and triumphs. One of group members described attending a highly useful conference session in which Janet Hickman of Ohio State University and Diane Monson of University of Minnesota shared syllabi from their children's literature classes with audience. The dinner guests asked one another, Why isn't there more opportunity for talk about work we do?Amy McClure, one of those conversants and currently Rodefer Professor of Education at Ohio Wesleyan University, described it like this: We realized there was a need for professors of children's literature to come together to discuss our work....And we also realized there was no forum for this kind of sharing (McClure, 2011, p. x). From that seed of an idea in 1993, these pioneering Children's Literature Assembly members proposed Master Class to be conducted yearly during NCTE's fall conference-a kind of professional development seminar led by experts in teaching of children's literature and attended by both experts and novices, who would come together to share strategies, ideas, and insights about masterful teaching of children's literature.At about that same time, as a part of its Options for Teaching series, Modern Language Association (MLA) published Teaching Children's Literature:Issues, Pedagogy, Resources, edited by Glenn E. Sadler (1992), in which experienced teachers described their seminars, workshops, and programs in children's literature to inform their colleagues about teaching such courses. Still in print, Sadler's text is part of a now 25-volume MLA series intended to support instruction of courses typically taught within English departments. In preface, Sadler explained its purpose: the volume is meant to serve as an informative guide for those interested in current trends in teaching of children's literature, as well as for those interested in constructing courses in (n.p.).U.C. Knoepflmacher (1992) of Princeton University claims in book's introduction that appearance of such a volume in MLA's respected teaching series helps to confirm serious place that study of children's literature now holds in college courses across United States and Canada (p. 1). While chastising smugness of those colleagues who still welcome isolation of a field once confined to schools of education, who continue to regard study of child texts as a less demanding and less rigorous enterprise (p. 5), Knoepflmacher contends that courses in children's literature are likely taught from more perspectives and with a greater range of approaches than any content currently situated in an adult canon.Even so, a reviewer at time (Pflieger, 1994) suggested that volume fails to address situation in which English-trained professors of children's literature find themselves: teaching a specialized literature to students essentially uninterested in literature itself' (p. 186)- and here she means teachers. Pflieger regrets that volume doesn't focus more on helping candidates from colleges of education experience the art and pleasures of a medium students have been trained to see as a teaching tool [emphasis added], and...whose main criteria for book selection are 'cuteness,' didactic possibilities, and ease of absorption (p. 186). We, of course, have evidence that Pflieger is sorely wrong about teachers' capacities for appreciation and analysis.Looking back from our current state of awareness, both of these actions-the initial planning of Master Class during NCTE dinner and production of a volume that reflects state of art in teaching children's literature-marked need to learn from others as we teach. …
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.823 | 0.633 |
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".