The trouble with dispositions: a critical examination of personal beliefs, professional commitments and actual conduct in teacher education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this article, I argue that the concept of disposition is often unclear in teacher education programs, sometimes referring to general personal values and beliefs, and sometimes referring to professional commitments and actions. As a result, it is unclear whether teacher education programs should focus on selecting the right kind of person, or on educating the student for a profession. I suggest that a clearer distinction should be made between predispositions (value commitments that a person may or may not act upon) and professional dispositions (characteristics attributed to a person based on actually observed actions), and that teacher education programs should focus their attention on the latter, not the former. The question is not whether student-teachers have the 'right' personal beliefs but whether, if the dispositions required by the profession are at odds with their personal beliefs, the former will override the latter. Keywords: teaching dispositionbeliefpredispositionteacher education Notes 1. Some teacher education programs prefer the term 'teacher-candidates' for students or candidates in pre-service teacher education programs. In this essay I will use the term 'student-teachers'. 2. Indeed in much earlier (fourteenth-century) literature, 'disposition' was used to designate 'the nature or constitution of a planet or sign, in relation to its alleged influence or effects', such as in Chaucer's line 'Mercurie loueth wysdam and science, And Venus loueth ryot and dispence' (Mercury loves wisdom and science, And Venus loves but pleasure and expense). 3. I am leaving aside here a discussion of another term used frequently in teacher education and other professional education: that of 'competency.' 4. As the 2004 Kempling case in B.C. illustrates, expectations about a teacher's conduct extend to conduct outside of the classroom (Kempling v. The British Columbia College of Teachers).
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".