Intensive training and practice (ITaP): Impact and possibilities for primary trainee teachers and schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article in the Chartered College of Teaching Impact magazine outlines the impact and possibilities in supporting primary trainee teachers (across both three-to-seven and five-to-11 age phases) with their developing pedagogy, employing the new approach of intensive training and practice (ITaP) within initial teacher education (ITE). Given that ITaP heavily involves partner schools and will likely form part of the new Ofsted inspection framework, it is essential to carefully consider this different approach in supporting trainee assessment across the curriculum. ITaP is designed as an integrated approach within ITE and differs from other aspects of teacher education due to the ‘intense focus on specific pivotal areas’ of assessment (DfE, 2022, p. 26). As such, ITaP offers an opportunity to have an intensive focus on a specific and fundamental aspect of practice to ‘give trainees feedback on foundational aspects of the curriculum where close attention to and control of content, critical analysis, application and feedback are required’ (DfE, 2022, p. 26).
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 | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".