Linking personal and professional knowledge of teaching practice through narrative inquiry
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Preservice teachers enter professional teacher education programs with personally constructed (but often implicit and unexamined) knowledge of what good teaching is and what kind of teachers they wish to become. If they are unable to connect new and/or expanded professional knowledge of teaching with their own unexamined narrative knowledge of teaching, professional knowledge presented in courses remains decontextualized theory; their personal narrative knowledge of teaching remains implicit and unexamined; and they teach as they believe they were taught. Here the use of four versions of narrative inquiry with preservice teachers are examined. Each one—Response to Practicum Experiences, Responses to Readings, Small and Large Group Discussions, and Reflection Papers—is intended to enable students to explore narrative assumptions that contribute to their images of teaching. Each form of narrative inquiry enables students to explore unexamined parts of their personal and professional knowledge of teaching and link these in explicit ways.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it