MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2555930746

The heart of teaching

2016· article· en· W2555930746 on OpenAlexaff
Allan MacKinnon, Chris Moerman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiverse Music Education Insights
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPracticumSingingActive listeningPedagogyClassroom managementPsychologyMusic educationControl (management)Mathematics educationComputer scienceManagementCommunication
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the early practicum experiences of a teaching candidate struggling with classroom management in a tough initial student teaching placement and his relationship with an advisor who coached him through the difficulty of getting his elementary school pupils to attend to his lessons.  The coach advised the student teacher to use his former success in the music industry as a way of finding his legs as a teacher, so the two worked together with music and singing with the children as a means of establishing classroom control and management.  The nuances of learning in the practice setting through demonstrating and telling, listening and imitating are examined.  The coach and student teacher ended up becoming friends and playing together in a part-time band.  Four years after their meeting and work together in the difficult practicum, the two had an opportunity to revisit their musical work with children and the article includes a description and examples of the rich applications of music in the current practice of the teacher, now working at the same school where the practicum occurred.  The use of music and singing with children had advanced from being an instrument of control to being a tool for further their learning of various topics in science and of establishing community and camaraderie in the school.  The article is couched in an argument that suggests the rhetoric of best practices and measureable outcomes for all students may dilute teaching candidate and teacher educator’s conceptions of being and becoming a teacher, and recommends that we attend to ways in which our discourses about teaching and learning might assist young teachers in thinking about the role of their own interests and talents in their careers as teachers.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.021
Scholarly communication0.0140.009
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.015

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDiverse Music Education InsightsFrench-language works237,207