Practice teaching programs in Canadian colleges and universities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study has been undertaken to provide, under one cover, a description of practice teaching throughout Canada as well as to express an informed opinion concerning the essentials of a suitable practice teaching program. To prevent the work from becoming unwieldy, it was necessary to set limits concerning the sources from which the necessary information should be drawn. It was determined that only those institutions whose primary language of instruction was English and which grant the Bachelor of Education degree or its equivalent should be dealt with. Twenty-one such institutions presently fall within these limits. Unfortunately, the necessary information has not been obtained from two of these. A third less strict line was drawn between practice teaching programs devoted to training secondary school teachers and those concerned with elementary education. For the most part, the programs described are those dealing with students aspiring to secondary school teaching. Where it was necessary to write of practice teaching in elementary schools, explicit reference is made to this fact. \nIn addition, not all the aspects of programs at these institutions are dealt with. However, an attempt is made concerning the essential elements of each. The intention is to deal with the following aspects of a practice teaching program: (1) time spent in both observation and practice teaching, (2) supervision of student teachers by university staff, (3) reports of cooperating teachers, (4) evaluation of student teachers, and (5) classes and texts relating to the practice teaching program. In every case, information covering these five points was not always available. In others, much more than this is readily obtainable and has been presented in respect of its importance.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 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".