Developing Teacher Candidates' Self-Efficacy Through Reflection and Supervising Teacher Support
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
The purpose of this study was to explore the complex cognitive and affective challenges of teacher candidates in their development toward self-efficacy in their teaching. Twenty-two teacher candidates recorded their challenges and thinking process during the last six weeks of their practicum. Following their placement, they completed a summative reflection, in which they noted changes in themselves and described when or if they felt confident as classroom teachers. Four themes emerge as the challenge or condition for their self-efficacy: effective classroom management, successful curriculum planning and implementation, positive rapport with students, and supervising teacher approval. This research suggests that teacher preparation program educators can support teacher candidates’ self-efficacy by understanding the developmental stages of teachers, supporting critical reflection, and using motivational and descriptive feedback to improve practical skills.Keywords: teacher self-efficacy; reflection; concerns-based stages model; transformational learning theory; and supervising teacher
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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