Particulars of Practice: A Collaborative Self-study of Mentoring Practicum-based Seminars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper documents research regarding the roles, practices, and identities of three faculty members who mentor teacher candidates during practicums. Using a collaborative self-study (Hamilton, 1995), the authors examine the implications of implementing “particulars of practice seminars” (POPS) where practice issues are surfaced by candidates and examined collaboratively through focused conversation. The POPS are designed to develop candidates’ authority of experience (Munby & Russell, 1994) and foster candidates’ agency in professional learning yet these aims are highly dependent upon the faculty mentors’ practices and how these seminars are conceived and enacted. Using reflections, email threads, and meetings, this self-study focuses on the authors’ conceptions of their practice, identities, and roles as faculty mentors participating in the POPS and introduces “braiding” as a metaphor to illustrate the weaving together of multiple data sources. Results include assertions regarding programmatic recommendations, faculty development, and methodological approaches used in self-study research.
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 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 | 0.033 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".