Pre‐service teachers' beliefs and pupil control ideology: the custodializing practicum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The puposes of this study is to examine the impact of primarily bureaucratic socialization; and demographic, experiential, and philosophical orientations (beliefs about key educational concepts) variables on teacher candidates' pupil control ideology (PCI) during a pre‐service teacher education program. The relationship between philosophical orientations and changes to PCI is of particular interest. Design/methodology/approach Data collected at the beginning and end of their teacher education program from 474 teacher candidates were analysed using multivariate analyses. Findings Practicum socialization experiences were more closely associated with participants' PCI at the end of the teacher education program than any of the demographic, experiential, or philosophical orientation variables. Research limitations/implications An examination of interaction effects among the variables revealed a limited number of situations where the interaction of particular beliefs, demographic, and experience variables appear to minimize the shift to a more custodial PCI. Specific implications are identified in relation to males and elementary teaching, urban practicum placements, and pre‐service teacher education curriculum units pertaining to authenticity of beginning teacher practices. Originality/value The study provides a framework within which educators may examine the authenticity of beginning teachers' practice. In particular, educators may wish to carefully consider the evidence suggesting that pre‐service teachers practice may be inauthentic, that is, primarily imitative as a result of custodializing socialization factors, but only in particular circumstances associated with their predominantly humanistic beliefs about education.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".