MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382489179 · doi:10.1080/1359866x.2023.2197188

Reorienting toward complexity in teacher education

2023· article· en· W4382489179 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jody Dlouhy-Nelson, Kyle Hamilton, Darlene Loland, Leslie P. Shayer, Catherine Broom, Sabre Cherkowski, Margaret Macintyre Latta, Karen Ragoonaden

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Environments and Student Outcomes
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPedagogyCognitive reframingForegroundingTeacher educationContext (archaeology)ScholarshipExperiential learningTransformative learningSociologyEquity (law)CurriculumPsychologyPolitical scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We are teacher educators committed to reorienting toward complexity in teacher education, given the multiplex terrain of the education landscape that awaits teacher candidates (TCs) upon receiving their Bachelor of Education degree. Within our context, we are preparing teachers to work with a recently revised curriculum and many regional, national, and global challenges and mandates, especially the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Report of Canada (2015). By encouraging the agency of the TCs – the scholar-practitioners – with whom we work, we aspire to a reflective and deliberative approach of engaging with issues, needs, and problems as caring humans. This paper traces our journey of collaborative inquiry as we revisit, reframe and repurpose influential scholarship. This involves pedagogical conceptions of experience and reflective thinking, informing the mindful complexity of being and becoming in place, while foregrounding local Indigenous Ways of Knowing and experiential learning as illustrations of a scholar-practitioner stance. Through inquiry in community, recognising the importance of drawing upon individual Teacher Candidate identity, we articulate how we learn as teacher educators to address the complex, contemporary issues of: equity, diversity, inclusion; decolonisation; education in times of crisis; and the challenges of ecological well-being.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsia-Pacific Journal of Teacher EducationSame topicEducational Environments and Student OutcomesFrench-language works237,207