Mentorship in the Professional Practicum: Partners’ Perspectives
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
Abstract The goal of this project was to examine the perspectives of teacher-education mentors and their protA©gA©s, regarding the effectiveness of the mentoring program within their extended-practicum placements. The authors examined these views in the light of findings reported in previous related research. They also drew implications from that analysis with a goal of enhancing the mentorship process not only for pre-service teachers, but also for practicum participants in other professional disciplines. The resulting data substantiated findings reported in previous literature with respect both to the positive and negative aspects of mentorship practice. A troubling element that appears across sectors was the persistent challenge of how to reduce/eliminate the negative elements that seem to re-emerge within the mentorship process in all disciplines. A key implication of this study is that mentorship planners and practicum educators from all professional fields should make concerted efforts not only to share promising ways to minimize these weaknesses, but to take deliberate measures to ensure that the processes/procedures deemed effective are maintained as well.
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 | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| 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