MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2747177973 · doi:10.5430/jct.v6n2p1

Microteaching: An Introspective Case Study with Middle School Teachers in New York City Public Schools

2017· article· en· W2747177973 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lauren Birney, Joyce Kong, Brian R. Evans, Macey Danker, Kathleen Grieser

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Curriculum and Teaching · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicDiverse Educational Innovations Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumMathematics educationMicroteachingContext (archaeology)PaceLiteracyPedagogyClass (philosophy)PsychologyTeacher educationComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to investigate the potential impacts of microteaching on experienced teachersparticipating in the Community Enterprise for Restoration Science (CCERS) Teaching Fellowship at Pace Universityas part of a National Science Foundation-funded research project on the education model known as the Curriculum andCommunity Enterprise for Restoration Science (CCERS). The program builds a learning community of teachers in thefellowship program as they participated in monthly workshops in cohorts and continuously interact with each otherduring the two years of the program. Each teacher in Cohort 1 of the CCERS Fellowship was required to provide a brieflesson that they have used in the classrooms from the CCERS curriculum. Generally, the Teaching Fellows’micro-lessons contained appropriate objectives presented to the class aligned well to the objectives of the CCERSinitiative, which focused on harbor restoration learning within a STEM context. By conducting field studies atrestoration stations that students set up near their schools, students across all schools learned about the biology,chemistry, ecology and history of the Hudson River. In addition to teaching science content, all teachers incorporatedlessons on helping students to develop literacy strategies to build vocabulary. The microteaching modules allowed forteachers to gain insight as to how the curriculum was being implemented into other teachers’ classrooms. It permittedfor teachers’ exposure to the various teaching methods and resources being used to assist underrepresented studentsand students where English is a second language.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Curriculum and TeachingSame topicDiverse Educational Innovations StudiesFrench-language works237,207