Global Perspectives on Teacher Preparation and Quality: Implications for the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
abstract: This paper explores the importance of teacher preparation and quality as evidenced by three of the top-performing countries, Canada, Finland, and Singapore, on the 2015 Programme for International Students Assessment (PISA). All three of these countries have exemplary teacher preparation programs that are consistent nationwide with rigorous entry requirements, a demanding course load, and numerous opportunities to gain in-field experience. They also all compensate their teachers at a comparable salary to that of other occupations to incentivize more people to enter the field. In the United States, on the other hand, society devalues teachers, teachers are not paid what they deserve, and there is a lack of consistency in teacher preparation programs, specifically in regards to out-of-field teaching and the alternate ways people can become certified. These two issues have plagued America's educational system, and they have resulted in under-prepared teachers and lower-performing students. Not only is there inconsistency in the way that teachers enter into the profession, but teacher preparation programs themselves vary in their requirements. In order to improve its educational system, America must obtain more rigorous teacher preparation programs, increase teacher salary, provide prospective teachers with more classroom experience, and have specific admission requirements to be a part of the teaching profession. There is much that the United States can learn from the 2015 PISA results and the many successful educational systems around the world, and it is time that America pays attention to the wealth of international educational research available to better its teacher preparation programs and obtain more quality teachers.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".