Collaborative teaching of an integrated methods course
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
With an increasing diversity in American schools, teachers need to be able to collaborate in teaching. University courses are widely considered as a stage to demonstrate or model the ways of collaboration. To respond to this call, three authors team taught an integrated methods course at an urban public university in the city of New York. Following a qualitative research design, this study explored both instructors‟ and pre-service teachers‟ experienceswith this course. Study findings indicate that collaborative teaching of an integrated methods course is feasible and beneficial to both instructors and pre-service teachers. For instructors,this collaborative teaching was a reciprocal learning process where they were engaged in thinking about teaching in a broader and innovative way. For pre-service teachers, this collaborative course not only helped them understand how three different subjects could berelated to each other, but also provided opportunities for them to actually see how collaboration could take place in teaching. Their understanding of collaborative teaching was enhanced after the course.
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 | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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