Cambios paradigmáticos en la formación de profesores: peligros, trampas y la promesa no cumplida del profesional reflexivo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Los programas de formación inicial docente tienden a estar saturados con referencias a la reflexión, a la práctica reflexiva y a la importancia de volverse un profesional crítico y reflexivo. A más de 25 años desde que los educadores comenzaron a considerar el concepto de Schön, hay poca evidencia de que el potencial de su idea de un profesional reflexivo se haya desarrollado en nuestras escuelas y programas de formación pedagógica. Este capitulo hace una revisión de literatura especializada sobre la práctica reflexiva en la formación inicial docente para construir una explicación acerca del hecho que los tan anhelados cambios paradigmáticos no han ocurrido. La complejidad de cambios paradigmáticos, la estabilidad de las prácticas docentes, y la significatividad del aprendizaje por observación que todos los profesores y formadores de profesores traen consigo a su trabajo son considerados en la construcción de una explicación de los muchos peligros y trampas asociadas al incumplimiento de la promesa del concepto de profesional reflexivo en la formación de profesores.
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 | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".