MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1490561706 · doi:10.22329/jtl.v5i2.157

Teacher-Candidates' Perceptions of School Climate: A Mixed Methods Investigation

2008· article· en· W1490561706 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lorenzo Cherubini

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Teaching and Learning · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Education and Leadership Studies
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPracticumTeacher educationCurriculumClassroom climatePerceptionVariety (cybernetics)PedagogySchool climateMathematics educationPsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preservice teacher-candidates are assigned to a number of different schools for their practicum experiences and as a result are immersed in a variety of school cultures and their respective climates. Interestingly, though matters related to school climate and the hidden curriculum are discussed in the literature, there is a lack of comprehensive research around preservice teachers’ expectations and observations during their formal teacher education program. Given that beginning teachers’ experiences are intensely impacted by their observations and experiences throughout their teacher training, the purpose of the study was to investigate teacher candidates’ beliefs about the climate of schools at the beginning and near completion of their teacher education program. More specifically, this study employed a mixed methods research design to determine how beliefs about the hidden curriculum of schools compared to teacher candidates’ impressions as they gained practice-teaching experience in various schools. The results may induce preservice education faculty to evaluate the underlying pedagogical causes that profoundly illuminate and engagingly implicate the tensions within teacher candidates’ expectations of school climate and their observed realities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Teaching and LearningSame topicTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesFrench-language works237,207