Perspectives on Laboratory School Practica from Canadian Secondary Mathematics and Science Preservice Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of contemporary laboratory schools has become singularly distinct from the private and public education systems, functioning as sites for practica, professional development and educational research without exploring their multiple purposes in tandem. This study examines the factors contributing to Canadian Secondary Math and Science teacher candidates’ practica experiences in a laboratory school setting. The primary data source is from semi-structured interviews to support a case study approach. With assorted degrees of impact, teacher candidates have identified six factors influencing their perceptions of the laboratory school setting before, during, and after their practica. The major findings are as follows: (1) University-School partnership stakeholders assumed partial responsibilities typically reserved for Faculty Advisors and Associate Teachers to offer more sources of support for Teacher Candidates; (2) The Third Space of the laboratory school offered six benefits for Teacher Candidates, including gaining peer mentorship and support across cohorts; (3) Laboratory school cohorts are tightly bonded communities, established by the extended timeframes they spend with each other, and their communities are reinforced and competitive feelings are mitigated through their shared venture in engaging in Action Research a site-based course; (4) Structured and unstructured classroom granted teacher candidates six advantages before they began their practica; (5) Engaging in self-studies in Action Research before practica enabled Teacher Candidates to understand the harmony of teaching and research as teacher-researchers so that during their practica they could leverage from their self-studies to inform them about the nuances of the school communities or critically reflect, and refine their teaching practice; (6) Emerging Scholarly Teaching mindsets were developed and its methodology was alluded to by Teacher Candidates as they unpremeditatedly correlated Action Research or Educational Research with their insights and occurrences about practice teaching in the laboratory school setting. Numerous facets of the Third Space, Apprenticeship, Collaboration and Inquiry, are showcased in the laboratory school practice setting. Teacher inquiry especially has been portrayed, which indicates the need for teacher candidates to continue developing their identities as teacher-researchers within and outside the confines of practica. Recommendations are provided for university-school partnership stakeholders to inform Teacher Education programming.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".