The Case for Decision‐Forcing Cases: Preparing Teachers for EFL Settings
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
As Mary climbed the three flights of stairs to the 4B (Grade 10) classroom, she wondered how well her conversation class would go. She was usually pretty upbeat, but today she had an uneasy feeling in the pit of her stomach. When she finally reached the classroom, the math teacher was still not finished. It would be another short session—probably just 25 or 30 minutes. Seeing the students only once every 6 days didn't help either. The year was almost over and she still didn't know most of their names. No wonder! She was seeing over 700 students each week! Mary Martin, a NET (native‐English‐speaking teacher) from Australia with almost 20 years of teaching experience, had only been at the Chan Chu Secondary School for 8 months and was still feeling her way around. This was her first EFL experience, and Hong Kong was a bit of a shock. She was really enjoying it, but there were so many things to adjust to. A few weeks ago, she decided to try using cooperative learning techniques in her classroom to provide more opportunity for her students to practice their English in small groups. They were much more at home with “chalk and talk,” but Mary was determined to experiment, even though they were generally resistant to anything new. Crammed into a small, stuffy room were 43 science students, 37 boys and 6 girls. Most were at the Band 4–5 level (low achievers on exams) and were not motivated to learn English. Many seemed completely apathetic and dispirited. Some even acted scared of her, although that was changing. In the corridor, several students were now saying hello to her instead of shifting their eyes and rushing away. She was pleased about that. After the math teacher exited the class, Mary took a deep breath and entered. The students pushed back their chairs, stood up, and recited, “Gooooood afternooooon, Miiiiiisssss Maaaaartin.” Mary smiled and greeted the class before asking them to take their seats. She wasn't sure if she'd ever get used to the formality. Mary clapped her hands and called out: “Today, we are doing group work, which means we are ‘fighting against the clock.‘ What do I mean by ‘fighting against the clock?’ I mean that we are going to have to quickly move our tables and chairs today. We are going to have to sit in groups of four, okay?” (excerpted from Jackson, 2000)
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle