MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2395863224 · doi:10.14221/ajte.2016v41n5.1

Ethics Education in Australian Preservice Teacher Programs: A Hidden Imperative?

2016· article· en· W2395863224 on OpenAlexaff
Helen Boon, Bruce Maxwell

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œAustralian journal of teacher education · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccreditationMedical educationSubject (documents)Teacher educationGraduate degreeResearch ethicsService (business)PsychologyPedagogyMedicineLibrary scienceComputer scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides a snapshot of the current approach to ethics education in accredited Australian pre-service teacher programs. Methods included a manual calendar search of ethics related subjects required in teacher programs using a sample of 24 Australian universities and a survey of 26 university representatives. Findings show a paucity of required standalone ethics subjects in the pre-service teacher training programs despite recent accreditation requirements by AITSL. When analysed by program type, the prevalence of an ethics related subject requirement in pre-service teacher programs revealed a concerning trend; post graduate programs, as a general rule, had a much lower prevalence of a mandatory ethics-related subject, including those subjects which are traditionally used as vehicles for embedding ethics, such as the Foundations of Education. Notwithstanding, all respondents agreed that the value of ethics in pre-service teacher programs is irrefutable. Implications for further research are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œAustralian journal of teacher educationSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207