Making the Invisible Visible: Identifying Shared Functions that Enable the Complex Work of University-based Teacher Educators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through our shared interest in articulating a knowledge base for teacher education, we believe a deeper examination of the work of teacher educators would contribute to a fuller understanding of who teacher educators are and the work they do. Recognizing how context and positionality influence conceptions of teacher education and with a desire to refine our own understandings of the work of teacher educators, we engaged in a collaborative self-study to examine the work of 12 university-based teacher educators in the United States. Through our analysis of one day in our work, we identified three key functions that transcend our positions and, at the same time, are essential, even core, aspects of the work that we enact daily. These functions of Design, Leadership and Advocacy are all framed by the educative purpose of the work of teacher educators. These functions are overlapping and highlight the movement and energy among the functions and collective purpose for teacher educator work. An underlying thread of connectivity, building and maintaining growth-oriented relationships through positionality, communication, and interaction weaves throughout the functions, and we found our community of practice developed throughout the collaborative self-study was a key aspect of connectivity and collaboration in our work as teacher educators. Identifying the key educative functions across our work enabled us to codify a shared language and challenge the assumption that there is no knowledge base in teacher education as an enterprise. We believe our examination of our work informs future inquiry into collective teacher educator practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".