Pre‐service teachers' beliefs and other predictors of pupil control ideologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to examine a variety of demographic, experiential, and philosophical orientation variables that may be predictive of pupil control ideologies (PCI) for teacher candidates at the beginning of a pre‐service program. In particular, it sets out to provide empirically grounded generalizations regarding the relationship between philosophical orientations and PCI. Philosophical orientation variables identified candidates' beliefs about key educational concepts. Design/methodology/approach Quantitative methodology was used in this study. Data from approximately 720 pre‐service participants in a pre‐service teacher education program were analysed via a series of correlational and multiple regression analyses. Findings These data supported the conclusion that while demographic and experiential variables were predictive of PCI at the beginning of the teacher preparation program, the most predictive variables were contained within the philosophical orientations variable cluster. Research limitations/implications These findings provide empirical evidence of a link between what beginning teachers believe about education and their approach at the beginning of their teacher education program to pupil control in the classroom. Originality/value These findings identify circumstances that may assist in attracting males into elementary teaching at a time when major teacher organizations are highlighting this perceived weakness in the teacher recruitment process. Additionally, the study recommends inclusion in teacher preparation programs of curriculum units pertaining to pre‐service teachers' beliefs about education, and provides suggestions for the content of such units.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".