MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011284997 · doi:10.37546/jalttlt38.4-1

JALT2014 Plenary Speaker article: An invitation to reflect on practice

2014· article· ja· W3011284997 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas S. C. Farrell

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Language Teacher · 2014
Typearticle
Languageja
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflective practicePsychologyComputer sciencePedagogyEngineering ethicsMathematics educationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reflective practice is now a common term in many teacher education and development programs worldwide. Although definitions of reflective practice may vary in different programs, it generally means teachers systematically collect information about their classroom happenings, and then analyze and evaluate this information and compare it to their underlying assumptions and beliefs so that they can make changes and improvements to their teaching. This paper outlines what reflective practice is, why it is important, and how teachers can reflect. 内省の実践(意識的に深く考え注意深く観察する)というのは世界中の多くの教員養成課程で使われている一般的な用語である。内省の実践の定義は、それぞれの教科課程で異なっているかもしれないが、一般的には、授業の向上と工夫のために、教師がクラス内の情報を体系的に集め、この情報を分析・評価し、自分達の教育の前提や信条と比較する、ということを意味している。本論では内省の実践とは何か、なぜそれが重要なのか、どのように教師は授業に反映できるかについて要点を述べる。

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.004

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.393 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Language TeacherSame topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207