MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414912890 · doi:10.1177/19394225251379070

Navigating Teacher Professionalism in Autoethnography: Ethical and Occupational Dilemmas in Professional Learning Reflections

2025· article· en· W4414912890 on OpenAlexaff
J M Laidlaw

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Education and Leadership Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoethnographyTransformative learningPraxisVignetteReflective practiceProfessional developmentReflection (computer programming)Thematic analysisProfessional learning communityProcess (computing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ongoing professional learning and engaging in practitioner-based research are characteristic qualities of teachers’ transformative professionalism. Autoethnography may align with the objectives of promoting autonomous adult learning through systematic reflection to enhance professional practice. Through an autoethnographic method, I generate a vignette disseminating my experiences as a public school teacher engaging in autoethnography as a reflective professional learning strategy to bolster my pedagogical/collegial practices. Findings generated via my reflective inquiry demonstrated that autoethnography may advance teachers’ transformative professionalism through autonomous exercise of knowledge and self-directed learning, and may bridge the gaps between theory and praxis in educational contexts. However, my vignette further revealed the confining tensions in which organizational professionalism ideology may simultaneously control and impede the scope, content, and dissemination of teachers’ autoethnographies, resulting in subtle forms of self-censorship. Further, this study generates new methodological insights into the procedural construction of a teacher’s autoethnography, specifically revealing the ethical challenges I navigated as a teacher engaging in autoethnography, a process that necessitated difficult decision-making regarding my own willingness to be occupationally vulnerable and measures to safeguard students’ confidentiality. Consequent to this inquiry, I generated practical recommendations to guide teachers interested in engaging autoethnography as a learning reflection tool and outline considerations to ensure authors’ physical, emotional, and occupational safety.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.381 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource DevelopmentSame topicTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesFrench-language works237,207