MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594603542 · doi:10.1177/1053825917696832

Applying Kolb’s Model to a Nontraditional Preservice Teaching Practicum

2017· article· en· W2594603542 on OpenAlexaff
Amy Burns, Patricia Danyluk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experiential Education · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Environments and Student Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPracticumExperiential learningPsychologyBachelorPedagogyPerspective (graphical)Reflection (computer programming)Mathematics educationTeacher educationExperiential education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reports on the initial findings of an ongoing study that will see six preservice teachers placed in a nontraditional practicum placement as part of their bachelor of education program. Reported here is the examination of emergent professionalism of the initial two preservice teachers during their nontraditional practicum placement on a housing construction site. Emergent professionalism is enacted when teachers shift their concerns from self to other, as described by Fuller. The findings are then examined from the perspective of Kolb’s experiential learning model, including the concrete experience, observation of and reflection on that experience, formation of abstract concepts based upon the reflection, and testing of the new concepts. As a result of this analysis, new insights are shared regarding the ways in which preservice teachers develop their emergent professionalism through examination of the environment, multiple sources of feedback, interdisciplinary lessons, and a hands-on learning environment.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.389 · 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
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

Citations25
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experiential EducationSame topicEducational Environments and Student OutcomesFrench-language works237,207