MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Implementing Theory and Practice: The Right Blend

2018· article· en· W301898455 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
K. G. Dueck

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of educational thought. · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPedagogyMathematics educationSociologyEpistemologySocial psychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The theory-practice blend is an issue which must be addressed by Faculties and Schools of Education in the conceptualization and implementation of their "initial" teacher preparation programs. In this paper I will elaborate on some of the problems encountered in attempting to obtain the "right blend" in the theory-practice issue followed by some suggestions of what might be done to improve the situation. I will end by sharing with you some "hunches" I hold regarding the issues which surround questions related to theory and practice. My comments and observations are based on experiences gleaned in the implementation of the Extended Practicum and Core Undergraduate Programs at the University of Calgary.

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)0.306
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.281
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score0.856

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3060.281
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0120.092
Scholarly communication0.0450.075
Open science0.0060.031
Research integrity0.0170.035
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.561
Teacher spread0.423 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of educational thought.Same topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207