Building Scaffolds in the Field: The Benefits and Challenges of Teacher Candidate Peer Mentorship
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
This paper details the perspectives of teacher candidates who participated in a paired practicum peer mentorship program. A total of 227 dyads of novice first year and mentor second or third year concurrent education students took part in a program that was developed with the intent of providing scaffolding through opportunities to engage in reciprocal learning. Of the 454 potential study participants, 166 elected to complete anonymous electronic post-program surveys documenting their perceptions of the benefits and challenges of this field experience model. Findings indicated that the majority perceived the practicum peer mentorship program to provide increased support through reciprocal learning and collegial collaboration, which enhanced their confidence and professional growth. Challenges included adjusting to the paradigm shift of paired practicum experiences, which necessitates deviating from perceptions of teaching as independent practice and developing contextual supports in collaboration with school board partners. The findings and implications may provide direction for teacher educators seeking to implement paired practicum experiences in attempts to scaffold candidates’ growth and promote their enculturation into collaborative communities of professional 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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it