MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392721192 · doi:10.22318/icls2023.480157

Comparing Teacher Educator and Novice Teachers’ Frames in Making Sense of Feedback During Rehearsals

2023· article· en· W4392721192 on OpenAlex
Marta Kobiela, Zhikun Zhang, Enista Sharonne Chiniah

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings. · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Education and Leadership Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyFrame (networking)Mathematics educationMultimediaVideo recordingPedagogyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we compared the frames that a teacher educator (TE) and preservice novice teachers (NTs) within a math teaching course used to interpret feedback that the TE provided during rehearsals.We conducted video-elicited interviews with the TE and two NTs in which they watched excerpts of TE feedback from a rehearsal video to understand: a) how the TE and the NTs described the problems of practice (PoP) that the TE feedback focused on and b) the frames the TE and the NTs used to interpret those PoP.We present two major differences in the types of frames that participants drew upon to describe the PoP.Our results highlight the importance of considering the frames that NTs may bring to rehearsals.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.268 · 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