Peer Coaches’ Perceptions: Can Coaches Support Teachers in Enacting Transformative Classroom Practice?
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 need for educational practices to be responsive to Ontario’s diverse student population is urgent. As such, many Ontario school districts look to peer coaches, to initiate school reform aimed at inclusive pedagogy. This study explored peer coaches’ perspectives on how their relationship with educators can transform classroom practices. Open-ended interviews and a focus group session were conducted. Two main themes emerged. First, when teachers worked with peer coaches to develop an inquiry question linked to a teaching challenge, the coaches tended to embrace a “learning by doing” stance encouraging teachers to explore various strategies to become more inclusive while addressing gaps in student achievement. Second, it appears that a peer coach’s open stance and willingness to co-construct the goals of this type of teacher learning provide a strong foundation for growth and change. This qualitative thesis contributes to our understanding of the role of peer coaches in supporting inclusive teaching practices.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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