A Case of Micro-Teaching within the Tertiary Training of Ontario Teachers
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
Micro-teaching has existed in tertiary education since the early 1960’s and today is utilized globally in teacher education programs. Micro-teaching herein involves reflective practice, experience-based learning, feedback and refinement phases. Micro-teaching herein includes the development of a lesson plan that is implemented in a teaching experience that involves reflection on and after teaching. Case analysis illustrates how micro-teaching incorporates role-play with peers which increases the authenticity of the experience, critical responses from stakeholders, reflection and feedback phases. Results from micro-teaching include reported professional growth and development via teaching experiences augmenting both self-efficacy and self-awareness. Micro-teaching has its limitations, and critics suggest the level of authenticity is problematic lessening usefulness however participant feedback and reflective action supports its continued use in tertiary training of new educators.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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