Learning to Become Instructional Coaches in Health and Physical Education
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose : To examine the experiences of a cohort of health and physical education teachers and consultants who were learning to become instructional coaches. Methods : Three surveys and three focus groups were administered to 14 participants over 9 months to consider their experiences of learning to become instructional coaches. Concepts from expectancy-value theory guided analyses of both quantitative and qualitative data. Results : Participants reported positive experiences learning to become instructional coaches. Understanding and importance-utility value increased significantly between the administration of initial and end surveys. Focus group data generally supported quantitative findings while enabling more specific insights to be gained, particularly regarding specific moments of participants’ learning that led to a shift in thinking or practice. Conclusions : Participants valued their experiences learning to become instructional coaches and identified the instructional coaching model as a powerful form of job-embedded professional learning based on teachers’ context-specific needs.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it