Research on the Role of the Relationship between Early Childhood Preservice Teachers and Their Cooperating Teachers in Influencing Preservice Teachers` Autonomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study uses the qualitative case study method to research how three early childhood preservice teachers interacted with their cooperating teachers and how their relationships influenced the preservice teachers` development of autonomy. This information may help teacher educators and cooperating teachers support preservice teachers` reflections on learning and teaching. Moreover, it is helpful for preservice teachers to reflect on their autonomy in conducting intern teaching as well as teacher education classroom courses. From the findings, it was found that in three cases Christiana, Lucy, and Judy were influenced by their interaction with their cooperating teachers in the context of student teaching internships. For Christina, trust and open communication between intern teacher and cooperating teacher played an important role in supporting her autonomy in learning and teaching. For Lucy, mutual respect and trust between her cooperating teachers supported her ability to understand issues and take responsibility to solve them on her own. Lastly, for Judy, the communication styles with the preserivce teacher and her cooperating teachers influenced the promotion of the preservice teachers` self-motivated construction of personal practical theories of learning and teaching. These findings were discussed on the basis of previous research and theoretical frameworks.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".