Investigating Student Teaching Directors’ Definitions of “Teacher” and Paradigms of Disability in Canadian Teacher Education Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Directors of Student Teaching from teacher preparation programs across Canada were surveyed and then interviewed in follow-up focus groups to determine the opportunities and barriers they perceived during processes of placing pre-service teachers with disabilities into practicum settings. These data are interrogated within three theoretical frameworks about disability—the medical model, the social model, and the critical disability theory—to determine whether decision-making by Directors of Student Teaching reflects a predominant paradigm of disability. Deconstructions of the current concept of “teacher” are presented with reference to these three paradigms of disability. Key words: Teacher identity, disability theory, equity. Les directeurs de stages des programmes de formation à l'enseignement de tout le Canada ont été interrogés, puis interviewés dans le cadre de groupes de discussion de suivi, afin de déterminer les possibilités et les obstacles qu'ils perçoivent au cours des processus de placement des enseignants ayant un handicap dans des milieux de stage. Ces données sont étudiées selon trois cadres théoriques sur le handicap - le modèle médical, le modèle social et la théorie critique du handicap - afin de déterminer si la prise de décision des directeurs de stages reflète un paradigme prédominant du handicap. Des déconstructions du concept actuel « d'enseignant » sont présentées en référence à ces trois paradigmes du handicap. Mots clés: identité de l'enseignant, théorie du handicap, équité
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".