Teacher Education during the COVID-19 Lockdown: Insights from a Formative Intervention Approach Involving Online Feedback
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
This paper examines preservice teachers’ perspectives on assessment feedback developed in a teacher education course during the first lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As initially negotiated with students, feedback was learner-centred and involved a formative intervention approach applied iteratively by the teacher educator over the course of one semester. Although such feedback was initially face-to-face, it had to be given exclusively online following the unexpected closure of the university. Analysis of student teachers’ perspectives, which were collected through an online questionnaire completed after their final assessment, reveals both positive and critical aspects regarding the feedback provided by the teacher educator. While reaffirming the significance of feedback as a crucial element for learning in online teacher education contexts, the findings also show that the clarity, affective bonding and multimodal meaning-making involved in face-to-face interaction are particularly challenging when the communication of feedback is digitally mediated. The implications and limitations of such findings are discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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