Growing Pre‐Service Teachers' Well‐Being Capacity: Comparing the Perspectives of Teacher Education Programme Administrators and Teacher Candidates Across Canada
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
ABSTRACT Recognising the importance of addressing teacher development in the early career stages, our study examined programmatic considerations within teacher education programmes in Canada to determine the extent to which teacher preparation included support for and promotion of teacher well‐being as part of their pre‐service teaching development. Using mixed method design, this article compares the findings from two pan‐Canadian questionnaires, from administrators of teacher education programmes and from teacher candidates in seven teacher education programmes across Canada, examining the programme components and ways they encouraged a focus on preparing for multiple dimensions of well‐being. The data analysis approach involved comparisons and contrasts between the two questionnaires (a set of the same or similar questions regarding dimensions of well‐being) and with the themes derived from the review of related research on fostering well‐being in educational programmes. The findings provide foundational knowledge and related practices that have the potential to guide the development of future teaching professionals.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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