The Value of Reflective Thinking Among Public Elementary Teachers in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research study investigated the perceived value of reflection among in-service teachers in Ontario, Canada. The surveys were randomly distributed to 140 teachers within the Toronto District School Board (TDSB; the largest school board in Canada). The teachers all had Ontario teaching certification, were surveyed at their current school, and had taught from one to 35 years. I investigated to what extent in-service teachers engage in reflective thinking, specific aspects of the teaching process that teachers reflect about, and sought to determine whether engagement in reflective thinking is related to years of teaching experience, elementary teaching levels (primary, junior, intermediate), and teacher preparation programs. The data were collected using the Perceived Value of Reflective Thinking Survey created by Dr. Sarah Russback (2006), and the data were evaluated and analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 22. In this study, self-reflection was regarded as a useful practice by most in-service teachers. The participants had a highly positive perception of improving as an overall reflective practitioner, neutral perceptions of reflecting through the writing process, and moderate perceptions of barriers of personal reflection. They also reflected moderately often on the eight aspects of the teaching process (student level of understanding, student engagement, future goals, classroom management, student assignments, pedagogy, assessment practices, and student grades). However, there was no significant relationship between engagement or reflective thinking and teaching level and years of teaching. I recommend that further research be conducted involving both pre-service and in-service teachers who teach at all levels.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".