Teaching in an unfamiliar place: A mixed methods-grounded theory study on the experiences of new correctional educators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New correctional educators must learn to teach in an unfamiliar correctional environment. In this convergent mixed-methods study, experienced correctional educators in Alberta, Canada reflected on their first 6 months teaching in adult correctional institutions. Teachers initially struggled to do something familiar (teach) in an unfamiliar place, perceiv- ing prisons as non-conducive to education. Seeing the absence of a purpose-built community, they built one or attached to existing non-educational communities. New educators invoked strategies such as engaging in mutual support, connecting with non-education professionals, asking others to demystify institutional culture, and practicing reflexivity. When reflecting on useful training and orientation activities, participants favoured community and relationship building. The teachers’ actions are framed using the concept of communities of practice, and a substantive theory of learning to teach in correctional environments is proposed. Finally, recommendations are provided to help ensure that new teachers are supported and prepared as they enter correctional education.
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 | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".