Reflective, Humanistic, Effective Teacher Education: Do Principles Supported in the "Deans' Accord" Make a Difference in Program Outcomes?.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines two Canadian teacher education programs in relation to reflec‐ tion‐based principles identified in the Association of Canadian Deans of Education’s Accord on Initial Teacher Education. In one program, data analysis indicated a strong link between the practice and beliefs of pre‐service teachers: they became more hu‐ manistic and their practices were more authentic. In the other program, the relation‐ ship between practice and beliefs was weak; practice tended to become more imita‐ tive of custodial mentor teachers, more accurately described as inauthentic. The study concludes that when reflection‐enhancing practices are prominent, teacher education programs more likely generate humanistic and authentic effective out‐ comes consistent with reflection‐based Accord principles. Key Words: beliefs about education, authentic practice, pupil control ideologies, educational effectiveness paradigms, reflective practice. Dans cet article, les auteurs analysent deux programmes de formation à l’enseignement canadiens en lien avec les principes – axés sur la réflexion – mis de l’avant dans l’Accord sur la formation initiale à l’enseignement de l’Association canadien‐ ne des doyens et des doyennes d’éducation. Pour l’un des programmes, l’analyse des données indique un lien étroit entre la pratique et les croyances des futurs ensei‐ gnants, leur approche devenant plus humaniste et leurs pratiques étant plus authen‐ tiques. Pour l’autre programme, la relation entre la pratique et les croyances était ténue ; leur pratique avait tendance à imiter davantage les mentors et pourrait être décrite comme inauthentique. Les auteurs en concluent que lorsque des pratiques favorisant la réflexion jouent un rôle important, les programmes de formation à l’enseignement sont plus susceptibles de donner des résultats humanistes et authenti‐ ques et ce, dans la logique des principes de l’Accord axés sur la réflexion. Mots clés : croyances au sujet de l’éducation, pratique authentique, idéologies quant au contrôle des élèves, paradigme en matière d’efficacité pédagogique, pratique ré‐ flexive.
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 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".