Learning Study in Teacher Education: Pre-service Teachers’ Experiences in Planning Lessons with Variation Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on pre-service teachers’ experiences in planning science lessons which were guided by a learning theory, variation theory. Specifically, how the teachers identified the objects of learning for their lessons, as well as the critical aspects corresponding to these objects of learning, were focused on; this aspect of lesson planning was reported to be challenging for teachers. A total of 27 science pre-service teachers from a Western Canada university participated in a professional development approach -- Learning Study -- that was implemented as part of a course in their initial teacher educaiton programme. With the purpose for teachers to bridge theory and practice, they learned about variation theory and collaborated in groups of four to five to plan science lessons. Phenomenography methodology was employed to capture the variation in the teachers’ experiences, resulting in the construction of three categories of description to illustrate the pre-service teachers’ complex experiences of learning to design and organize their science lessons. Categories include how the teachers analysed science curricula to develop coherency in lesson planning, reflected on personal learning and teaching experiences to inform pedagogy, and analysed external resources to develop knowledge of students. Implications will be discussed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".