MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965900511 · doi:10.22329/jtl.v12i2.5767

Challenges and Possibilities of Scaffolding Critical Reflection and Cultural Responsiveness for Pre-Service Special Educators

2018· article· en· W2965900511 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bindiya Hassaram, Phyllis Robertson, Shernaz B. García

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Teaching and Learning · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPracticumMentorshipReflection (computer programming)Critical reflectionExploratory researchSelf-reflectionQualitative researchField (mathematics)Teacher educationPedagogyService (business)Computer sciencePsychologyMedical educationSociologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the nature of their responsibilities in field-based settings, university supervisors play an important role in preparing pre-service teachers to become culturally responsive and critically reflective special educators. However, supervisors themselves may not have the experience and training necessary to do so, and limited guidance is available regarding effective mentorship practices to foster implementation of culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogy (CLRP) and critical reflection. This exploratory qualitative study examined how three supervisors engaged in post-observation conferences with their student teachers to promote critical reflection about CLRP using content and discourses analyses. Findings indicated that, although student teachers engaged in discussions about CLRP and were able to critically self-reflect, supervisors were unable to facilitate critical reflection vis-à-vis institutional practices and systemic bias. Theoretical and practical implications for supervision of practicum experiences in pre-service teacher education programs are offered.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.103
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.182
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1030.182
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.024
Scholarly communication0.0180.011
Open science0.0040.017
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.394 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Teaching and LearningSame topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207