Two Ways to Teach: Direct Instruction and Indirect Instruction/Inquiry: Simplifying Planning Concepts for Early Career Teachers
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 paper describes two planning diagrams that support pre-service and early career teachers’ understanding of direct and indirect instructional approaches to teaching Conceptual models can support understanding of the embedded decision points that new teachers must address as they plan lessons. In this paper, we offer 2 models to support the understanding of pre-service and early career teachers with two conceptual diagrams that relate to lesson planning. One of these diagrams has been used for several years with pre-service teachers who have identified that this conceptual diagram has helped them understand planning concepts early in their planning experiences. This diagram demonstrates the phases of instruction used by experienced teachers when they plan for direct instruction. A body of prior research has been completed to demonstrate the existence of the main conceptions and relative times in the diagram as they are evident in teachers’ practice and to identify how the diagram is perceived by pre-service teachers. The second diagram has been designed as a complimentary method of helping pre-service teachers understand concepts related to planning for indirect instruction involving various forms of inquiry.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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