An interdisciplinary analysis of microteaching evaluation forms: how peer feedback forms shape what constitutes “good teaching”
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
Microteaching, a standard method for developing teaching skills, places high importance on peer feedback, which is guided by post-session feedback forms. This paper focuses on how feedback forms can shape what becomes understood as important to teaching. A sample of 10 microteaching evaluation forms drawn from North American postsecondary education institutions were examined using both qualitative and quantitative methods. Through a mixed-methods, interdisciplinary approach combining quantitative form classification based on distinct teaching elements with qualitative analysis drawing on Foucauldian and post-structural feminisms, key challenges are identified in the way that peer feedback forms may shape perceptions of what constitutes “good teaching”. We interpret that the close attention paid to the management of the body and the disproportionate focus on presentation and style may foreclose other modes of teaching beyond a conventional lecture-based class. This leads to a discussion on the ways in which the evaluation forms can be enhanced to provide a more effective educational tool.
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 | 0.031 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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