MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610881553 · doi:10.55016/ojs/ajer.v62i4.56144

Professional Learning Through Video: Reflection of a Pre-Service Teacher One Year On

2017· article· en· W2610881553 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maria Antonietta Impedovo, Hélène Cheneval-Armand

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Journal of Educational Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflection (computer programming)Professional developmentReflective practiceTeacher educationTypologyTUTORPedagogyService (business)Mathematics educationPsychologyComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research presented in this paper investigates a pre-service teacher’s reflection on professional learning using the medium of video. To promote a reflective activity, we invited the pre-service teacher—now a titular teacher—to comment on their activity while remarking on a recording of one of their lessons conducted one year earlier. The lesson was performed in a professional high school, followed by a meeting with the teacher and a university tutor. Quali-quantitative analysis was used to analyse the data--where the teacher’s reflections emerged during their viewing of the lesson—to trace the typology of the comments of the pre-service teacher, and the topics of the reflection. The analysis highlights the dimensions of reflective activity, which can be a reflection of the professional learning of the pre-service teacher in one year. This study provides useful information in describing the process of professional learning and, at the same time, supports the integration of video into pre-service teacher training as a tool of reflection.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.226
GPT teacher head0.574
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207