Developing deep understanding of teacher education practice through accessing and responding to pre-service teacher engagement with their learning
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
In this research we examined the ways we accessed and responded to students’ engagement with a set of pedagogical principles of teacher education focused on meaningful physical education. The research was cross-cultural, taking place in universities in Country 1 and Country 2. Self-study of teacher education practice (S-STEP) methodology guided collection and analysis of the following data over one year: lesson planning and reflection documents, and critical friend and ‘meta-critical friend’ interactions. Findings indicate the value in teacher educators becoming more intentional and systematic in how they access student perspectives related to engagement with learning experiences of pedagogical innovations in pre-service teacher education, while also emphasising the challenges in doing so. The concepts of reflection on- and in-action provided a framework for understanding how being more intentional about accessing student perspectives can be enacted in teacher education practice. Our experiences demonstrate how focusing on student engagement can support the professional learning of teacher educators through enabling a deeper understanding of the challenges faced in being responsive to students’ engagement with their learning.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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