Book Review: Awards and Recognition for Exceptional Teachers K-12 and Community College Programs in the U.S.A., Canada and Other Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Book review: Awards and Recognition for Exceptional Teachers K-12 and Community College Programs in the U.S.A., Canada and Other Countries by Hans A. Andrews Matilda Press, Ottawa, III., 2006, 370 pp. with index, $24.95(TM) soft cover. If you want a detailed list of the teacher award and recognition programs currently being used at the K-12 level, then this book will provide an extensive compilation of these Since there are fewer listings of awards and recognitions at the community college, it may be of less interest to those in higher education. The first three chapters of the book provide background on the philosophy and objectives for award and recognition programs; the subsequent seven chapters provide a fairly exhaustive list of current teacher award and recognition For each award and recognition program, the author provides information about the sponsor of the award, the rationale behind the creation of the award, the amount of any stipend, certificates received by recipients and details about past recipients. The author arranges the chapters so that one can easily index awards by whether or not they are national, state, individual school-level, Canadian, or other international A major weakness with the book is a failure by the author to support his main proposal that it is essential for institutions to increase the number of teacher award and recognition The author even promises on the back cover that the reader will learn Why all exceptional teachers must have local and state awards and recognition programs. Since there is little research throughout the book to substantiate his argument, one is left to simply trust on face value that award and recognition programs facilitate better teachers. In the first chapter, the author does attempt to document favorable outcomes of award and recognition programs by citing research findings, but his coverage is limited to a few studies where teachers simply extol the virtues of the award bestowed upon them (i.e., Andrews, 1995). These studies were also plagued by extremely small sample sizes (e.g., N
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 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 | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".