MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7020818484

Misleading Opportunities: a case-study on the influences of global competency frameworks within Ontario initial teacher education

2024· other· en· W7020818484 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUCL Discovery (University College London) · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobal citizenship educationGlobal educationGlobal citizenshipTeacher educationQualitative researchCore competencyCitizenshipSpace (punctuation)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Initial teacher education (ITE) programmes are called upon to prepare teachers to support K-12 students facing the complex challenges of a globally connected world. One approach to global learning has been through the diverse and contested field of global citizenship education (GCE). More recently, policy actors have introduced global competency frameworks intending to influence educational practice to prepare “youth for an inclusive and sustainable world” (OECD, 2018). This study appraises the influences of Ontario-based global competency frameworks on teacher candidates’ (TCs’) understanding and practice of GCE during their ITE programme. Wary of the longstanding critiques of the “theory-practice gap” in teacher education, the study focuses on how teacher candidates interpret and apply global competency frameworks to guide their learning and pedagogical development during their programme. The qualitative case study critically presents global competency frameworks and examines data collected from TCs’ course assignments and interviews. The analysis of this data foregrounds TCs’ perspectives and is informed by qualitative content analysis and core elements in Canadian GCE. The thesis shows that while TCs adopt the Ontario global competency frameworks as reflective tools that open space for GCE, their interests, experiences, and identities significantly inform their pursuit of GCE in schools. As a tool, the frameworks act as ‘soft levers’ – soft in both the degree of their influence and the kind of GCE they promote (Andreotti, 2006) as they are populated with discursive orientations that emphasize skills for the global marketplace and distract attention from global issues and content. The study draws attention to the limits of approaching ITE research from a “theory-practice” binary. It sheds light on the agentic dimensions of teacher candidates during their teacher education programmes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0300.011
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUCL Discovery (University College London)French-language works237,207