Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teachers benefit greatly from the ability to critically read and conduct research on their own teaching practice. However, teacher candidates often complete ITE programs with many of the same beliefs surrounding research that they held upon entering (Gitlin, et al. 1999; Joram, 2007). Despite the need for a carefully structured approach to research literacy, little attention has been paid to how research literacy is integrated into ITE programs in Canada. This study uses qualitative document analysis of publicly accessible faculty of education websites to better understand where and how research literacy is integrated into accredited university ITE programs across Canada (Angers and Machtmes, 2005; Bowen, 2009; Fairclough, 2003; Valli, 2000). Tentative results indicate that while most ITE programs state the goal of building an inquiry stance among students, a significantly smaller number provide tangible research education components throughout the program. While some programs offer research courses or independent primary research projects, nearly no programs offer the opportunity for students to conduct research as an integrated part of their in-school practicum experience. Findings will offer a valuable resource to universities, policy makers, and researchers seeking to improve research literacy programing and better understand the state of teacher education in Canada.
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 | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".