Teachers’ Beliefs, Perceived Practice and Actual Classroom Practice in Relation to Traditional (Teacher-Centered) and Constructivist (Learner-Centered) Teaching (Note 1)
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
This study explored the EFL teachers’ beliefs, perceived practice and actual classroom practice in relation to Traditional (teacher-centered) and Constructivist (learner-centered) teaching in Cyprus Turkish State Secondary Schools context. For this purpose, semi-structured interviews and structured observations were employed with purposively selected participants to gain in-depth understanding about the teachers’ beliefs, their perceived practice and actual classroom practice. The teachers were interviewed to elicit their subjective views about their beliefs and perceived practice regarding the themes, teacher-centered and learner-centered teaching in the context of their instructional practice. The observations were carried some time after the interviews had been completed. The teachers were observed for the purpose of exploring to what extent their beliefs were reflected in their classroom practice. COLT (Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching) Observation Scheme was utilized as the data collection instrument. 10 EFL teachers were purposively selected by criterion sampling as the participants of the investigation. An equal number of experienced male and female teachers who were similar in terms of length of experience were selected for the in-depth interviews and observations on voluntary basis. Findings of the study revealed that regarding teacher-centered and learner-centered teaching, teachers showed some variations in their stated beliefs. The interview data indicated that although the teachers expressed their beliefs in Constructivist learning and teaching, and both Constructivist and Traditional, their perceived practice was Traditional (except one teacher for whom it was both). However, the findings based on the observational data showed that Traditional practice was more frequent than communicative potentially Constructivist practice.
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 | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| 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 | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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