Charismatic, competent or transformative? Ontario school administrators’ perceptions of “good teachers”
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
Emphasis on issues of social justice and attention to socio-cultural perspectives on learning might be at odds with prevailing conceptions of “the good teacher.” In this paper, we probe the perceptions of “good teaching” among Ontario school administrators. We begin with an investigation into dominant discourses of “good teachers” based on the framework posited by Moore (2004). Next, we examine the context that gave rise to Ontario’s New Teacher Induction Program (NTIP), and how this program shapes perceptions of good teachers and good teaching. Data from interviews with forty-one school administrators shed light on their perspectives on good teachers, which is analyzed in light of the dominant discourses and the governing NTIP policy and practice. The discussion highlights the highly personal nature of perceptions of good teaching, and ways in which Ontario school administrators’ perceptions tend to reinforce dominant discourses. The conclusion raises questions about how new teacher induction programs reinforce dominant discourses, and raises possibilities to allow for alternate discourses to coexist.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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