Bibliographic record
Abstract
High quality teachers make a difference. Marzano notes, “the single most influential component of an effective school is the individual teachers within that school” (2007, p. 1). There are a multitude of considerations that impact the effectiveness of an individual teacher, but arguably the quality of a teacher’s educational training program is of paramount importance. The initial theory and practical training that pre-service teachers receive not only prepare educators to enter the classroom but can have a profound impact on their later growth and development as a professional. However, despite the impact that pre-service teacher training may have on developing effective teachers, what constitutes a quality teacher education program is not commonly agreed upon. As Linda Darling-Hammond (2000) comments, “Education schools have been variously criticized as ineffective in preparing teachers for their work, unresponsive to new demands, remote from practice, and barriers to the recruitment of bright college students into teaching” (p. 166). Educational programs can be considered fragmented, with various aspects of the content, pedagogical coursework and field experienced viewed as disconnected, with a divide existing between university and school based training (DarlingHammond, 2000). The research objectives of this paper are to examine: (1) the pre-service education model developed at one Alberta, Canada university, an undergraduate program that strives to achieve program coherence between the teaching skills required by provincial legislation, course content and field experiences; (2) the government standards for beginning teachers, (3) student personal responses of their sense of readiness compared to the government standards (comparing the education program to government requirements), and (4) potential use of a reflective tool shared in further forging program coherence. The results show a clear-headed view of the students’ own “sense of preparedness.” They can distinctly see where they have strengths and where they have areas that they intend to work on.
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 | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".