Exploring the Relationship between Self-Regulated Learning and Reflection in Teacher Education
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Literature on teacher learning has shown links between being a self-regulated learner, reflecting effectively on one’s own practice, and being described as an “adaptive expert”. For instance, the metacognitive skills needed for effective reflection on teaching practice are seen as critically important to developing adaptive expertise in the context of the highly complex classroom environment. Similarly, self-regulated learning is often defined, at least in part, in terms of using metacognitive skill to adapt one’s approach to complex learning situations or problems. Although there is rich literature on reflective practice in teacher education, less is known about measuring teachers’ self-regulated learning or the relationship between self-regulated learning and teacher reflections. This research examines reflective practice and self-regulated learning through pre-service teachers’ written reflections. The study makes a novel adaptation of a rubric designed to evaluate teacher education candidates’ reflections to measure self-regulated learning. Findings suggest that the rubric could also be useful in understanding the self-regulated practices of teacher education candidates.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it