Developing pre-service O&M specialists’ reflective practices to improve problem-solving opportunities during instruction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability of instructors to promote problem-solving abilities is an important pedagogical skill. Providing well-planned problem-solving opportunities is especially vital in orientation and mobility (O&M) lessons. During personnel preparation programs, pre-service O&M specialists would benefit from developing a keen awareness of how well they encourage problem-solving in their instruction. This mixed-methods study reports on a process in which nine pre-service O&M specialists engaged during their blindfold techniques course. Each participant taught two lessons to a peer in their course, engaging in a retroactive think-aloud after each lesson. The process focused participants on the types of questions they asked to promote thinking and engaged them in reflection on how well the lesson met their intended objectives. Results indicated qualitative benefits noted by the participants of engaging in the process and also highlighted a need for further work with pre-service O&M specialists on question asking and allowing problem-solving and thinking opportunities during basic lessons.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it