MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2993972614 · doi:10.33178/lc.2019.26

Collaborative learning, role play and case study: Pedagogical pathways to professionalism and ethics in school placement

2019· article· en· W2993972614 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Manuela Heinz, Mary Anne Fleming, Pauline Logue, Joseph McNamara

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicValues and Moral Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedagogyEngineering ethicsPsychologyMathematics educationSociologyMedical educationMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Teachers are moral agents. Acting professionally in loco parentis teachers have a legal and moral duty of care to students (DES, 2017). Moreover, they can be regarded as moral ‘role models’ (Bergen, 2006; Lumpkin, 2013). Professional codes of practice assist teachers in their moral agency (Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2004; CDET, 2017; DfE, 2011; Education Council, 2017; Teaching Council, 2012; 2016; World Class Teachers, 2017). In conjunction with official codes of conduct, TE ethics programmes contribute to the development of “a moral language” and raise awareness of moral agency in teaching (Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2010). In 2014 the National University of Ireland, Galway (NUIG) and the Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology (GMIT) jointly developed a cross-institutional training programme entitled ‘The Ethical Teacher Programme’, designed to facilitate student teachers to reflect upon professionalism and ethics during School Placement. The programme incorporated both a study of the Teaching Council Code of Professional Conduct for Teachers (Code) (2012) and explorations of selected ethical ‘case studies’ in teaching, using collaborative learning (CL) and role play strategies. The ‘ethical dilemma’ approach employed mirrored literature studies (Colenerud, 1997; Husu & Tiri, 2003; Klassen, 2002). Unique to the approach, however, was the method of application of selected classical and contemporary ethical philosophies to moral dilemmas in teaching. The programme was designed to include a one-hour introductory lecture on professionalism and ethics (from the perspectives of moral literacy and ethical theory) followed by a two-hour applied workshop. The workshop employed student-centred, active teaching and learning methods, specifically, collaborative learning, role play and case study analysis. Six ethical philosophical principles (or ‘lenses’) were integrated into programme delivery - teleology, deontology, virtue ethics, justice ethics, care ethics and relationality ethics. These lenses were applied to real-world teaching case studies. One cohort to which this training programme is offered annually is the student teachers on the Professional Master of Education (PME) programme in NUIG. The PME cohort (2015-2016) is the focus of the present study. The study sought a critical reflection on, and evaluation of, this training programme, from a student perspective. This study is phase one of a larger on-going study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.889

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.140
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicValues and Moral EducationFrench-language works237,207