MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038945024 · doi:10.5430/ijhe.v1n2p184

Pre-Service Beginning Teachers’ Beliefs, Expectations and Other Teacher Preparation Issues of the Practicum at the University of Trinidad and Tobago

2012· article· en· W2038945024 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
George Gowrie, Mala Ramdass

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Higher Education · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Education and Leadership Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPracticumMentorshipPsychologyAxial codingGrounded theoryTeacher educationPedagogyMedical educationQualitative researchSociologyMedicineSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study examined the extent to which there were changes in pre-service teachers’ beliefs, expectations and other teacher preparation issues over a four-year period at the University of Trinidad and Tobago. The study was guided by the conceptual framework of Calderhead and Shorrock (1997) – the personal, critical, academic, practical and technical orientation - and compared pre-service teachers’ reflections on these five components before and after their exposure to the practicum at the university. The participants in the study were 36 pre-service beginning teachers who were never exposed to any teacher training programme. There were 12 males and 24 females whose average ages were 24 years. Data were collected through in-depth semi-structured interviews at the beginning and the end of the four year period. The interview data were audio-taped and later transcribed in the tradition of grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Systematic coding was used to uncover key features and emerging themes from the first and second phases of the study. Five categories consistent with the conceptual framework of the study were identified: beliefs and expectations, mentorship support, resource adequacy, content and pedagogical knowledge and adequate classroom experiences. The findings suggested there were some changes in pre-service beliefs and expectations and other preparation issues. There were also mixed messages from the beginning teachers with regard to adequate resources, mentorship support and classroom experiences. Recommendations were made for the continuing professional development of these novice 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 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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Higher EducationSame topicTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesFrench-language works237,207