MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2591269729

The Work of Elementary Principals in Supporting New Teachers in Ontario, Publicly-Funded, English Speaking Schools

2016· article· en· W2591269729 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jennifer M. Gonyou-Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSecond Language Learning and Teaching
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Mathematics educationPedagogySociologyPolitical sciencePsychologyEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Teachers benefit from instructional, emotional, institutional and physical supports in their early years of practice (Lipton & Wellman, 2003). Yet, with a teacher surplus in Ontario, many early career teachers (ECTs) spend years in transient, short-term work prior to qualifying for the New Teacher Induction Program (NTIP). As school leaders, Ontario elementary principals develop and facilitate supports for the ECTs in their school. However, principals have identified their workloads to be demanding and intensifying (Pollock, 2014b). ECT support development is one of many responsibilities that principals undertake in their work.\nThis qualitative study employed semi-structured interviews with twelve elementary principals from five school districts in Southern Ontario, Canada to explore these issues and investigate the work of principals in supporting the ECTs in schools. Specifically, this study examined how elementary principals understand ECT supports. It recorded the strategies principals employed to develop and facilitate the supports for ECTs. The influence of ECT support policy on principal work was considered along with the challenges that principals identify in their development and facilitation of supports.\nThe findings indicate that principals found their work in developing and facilitating ECT supports to be meaningful. Supports were considered an investment in ECTs and principals recognized priority in their support development for the ECTs that invest in their school and teaching practice. Principals indicated challenge in scheduling the development and facilitation of new teacher supports within their intensifying workload. Lastly, a potential policy gap between ECTs being hired and qualifying for NTIP meant principals were not always able to develop and facilitate supports for some of the ECTs that are engaged in short-term teaching assignments, leaving informal supports and self-directed learning as interim solutions until those ECTs gained consistent teaching work.

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)0.007
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0230.013
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)Same topicSecond Language Learning and TeachingFrench-language works237,207