Using Simulated Parent-Teacher Talks to Assess and Improve Prospective Teachers’ Counseling Competence
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
<p>In research on parental involvement and teacher professionalization, counseling parents on the support of their children’s learning processes is considered to be an increasingly important competence area of teachers. However, to date little research has been conducted on the development of appropriate approaches to the assessment of teachers’ counseling competence. The current study describes the validation of a behavior-based instrument for the assessment of teachers’ counseling competence including counseling talk simulations with standardized parents as well as the examination of its suitability as an intervention for the improvement of participants’ counseling competence. The validation was carried out within the framework of a longitudinal quasi-experimental study with 51 prospective teachers. Multivariate repeated measures MANOVAs revealed the suitability of the counseling talk simulations both as an assessment instrument and an intervention. Results provide numerous implications for teacher preparation and continuing education, for example, the use of the counseling talk simulations as a didactical tool within the framework of teacher training programs.</p>
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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