MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019786572 · doi:10.1080/01443410.2013.870329

From pre-service to practicing teacher: considering the stability of personal and classroom mastery and performance goals

2013· article· en· W2019786572 on OpenAlexaff
Lia M. Daniels

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational Psychology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMastery learningQualitative propertyProfessional developmentMathematics educationPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research shows that personal and classroom goals are important for pre-service and practicing teachers’ personal and professional outcomes; however, no research has examined changes to these types of motivation across the transition from student to teacher. This study followed pre-service teachers (n = 47) into practise and assessed changes in self-reported personal and classroom goals using surveys and focus groups. Correlations, repeated measures analysis of covariance and reliable change indices were used to assess stability/change in the quantitative data. Qualitative data were analysed for themes and largely supported the quantitative results. The results showed that teachers were at least as personally oriented towards mastery-approach in their practice as they were during their pre-service education but less personally performance focused. In terms of classroom goals, performance practices increased whereas mastery practices decreased, particularly for secondary school teachers. Although practicing teachers are personally mastery-oriented in their teaching, their intentions to establish classroom mastery goals appear difficult to enact in practice.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations24
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducational PsychologySame topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207