Factors Affecting Teacher-Candidates’ Practicum Evaluations
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
This report is an extension of a study that examined the final
 evaluations of 17 cohorts of teacher-candidates (n=374), who
 completed their 16-week extended-practicum through one Western Canadian university in one of the years from 1986 to 2002. Evaluation results based on nine instructional categories were analyzed according to four factors: (a) grade level taught; (b) school location; (c) year of the internship; and (d) gender of the intern.
 
 Descriptive statistics calculated for each of these four factors revealed minor differences in the intern sub-groups’ aggregates of final evaluation ratings. For grade level, interns who taught K-3 were rated slightly higher than those in the other grade levels in six of the nine instructional skills. The interns who taught grade 7-12 were rated lowest of the three groups in three of the teaching categories. With respect to urban/rural school location of the internship, interns from rural schools were evaluated slightly higher than their urban counterparts for six of the nine skills. For year of the practicum, calculations showed slightly better evaluations in three teaching skills for interns who completed the practicum after 1996, than for those who completed it during the 1986-1995 period. Female interns were rated slightly higher in eight of the nine teaching categories than were their male colleagues.
 
 Possible explanations accounting for these minor differences are provided, and implications discussed for the program under study and for their “transferability” (Donmoyer, 1990) to pre-service teacher preparation programs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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