Teacher education as the practice of virtue ethics: Editorial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent decades have seen the elevation of education from an intermittent concern of governments to its current place as a cornerstone of social and economic policy.More specifically, education is now deemed vital to the simultaneous achievement of economic growth, community cohesion and social justice (Furlong 2013).However, primus inter pares within this redemptive view of education has been an instrumental discourse of the centrality of the teacher as the guarantor (or potential under-miner) of future economic growth and prosperity (Larsen 2010).As a result, teacher education is now deemed too important to be left in the hands of academics and teacher educators.Thus, the field has consequently been subjected to an intense and extended series of authoritative reforms, underpinned by the same competitive, instrumental and utilitarian worldview that has transformed education more broadly (Frankham and Hiett 2011), in order to ensure that education fulfils its economically conceived potential.Specifically, and justified as an attempt to ensure that teachers and schools rise to the challenges of globalisation and come out 'on top' in the context of relentless international economic competition (see, for example, Barber and Mourshed 2007), teacher education in a range of global contexts, including Canada, England, and Israel has undergone radical reconfiguration and reform.As a result of these reforms, teacher educators now find their work circumscribed within a matrix of policy requirements, including prescribed curricula, mandated teacher professional standards and ongoing inspection regimes.In short, teacher education has been turned into technical and instrumental, rather than a moral or ethical, practice (Biesta 2015).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.039 | 0.034 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".