Perceptions of conformity during the student teaching placement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the issue of conformity and the relationship \nbetween student teachers and associate teachers during the pre-service practicum. The three \nquestions that guided this research included: (a) Did associate teachers expect pre-service \nteachers to mirror their practices during the practicum? (b) Did student teachers describe and \nexpectation of conformity within their field experience?; and (c) What circumstances during the \npracticum increased the likelihood of conformity? \nThis study was conducted with a sample of student teachers and associate teachers during \nthe 1999 - 2000 school term at one Ontario university, and it consisted of two phases of data \ncollection. The first stage involved preliminary interviews with one student teacher on two \nseparate occasions. The data from these interviews guided the surveys that were distributed to \nstudent teachers and associate teachers in the second phase of data collection. \nThis study found that associate teachers indicated that conformity occurred, and a fraction \nof these participants clearly expressed a desire for this behaviour. Other associate teachers may \nhave implied this expectation through communication, feedback, and their actions. The student \nteachers suggested that conformity occurred in smaller numbers. Some participants expressed \nthat it was a requirement of the practicum, while others felt that conformity occurred out of \nrespect for the associate teacher. \nWith reference to the factors that contributed to conformity, a perceived expectation of \nconformity and an associate teacher with more than 20 years of experience all increased the rate \nof conformity with this group of participants. If student teachers observed for one week at the \nstart of their practicum and then proceeded to teach 3 - 4 lessons per day, they reduced their risk \no f conformity. Additional variables aside from the ones presently stated were also examined \nwithin this 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".