Toward a Conversation Between ESL Teachers and Intensive English Program Administrators
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several scholars have investigated the strengths and weaknesses of native‐English‐speaking (NES) and nonnative‐English‐speaking (NNES) teachers of English as a second language (ESL), but few researchers have explored intensive English program (IEP) administrators' and ESL teachers' perspectives on teacher training and the strengths and weaknesses of NES and NNES teachers. Through online questionnaires, this study examined 96 ESL teachers' perceptions regarding their (MA TESOL) teacher education and 21 IEP administrators' perspectives about teacher training and their resulting hiring practices. Results show similarities between IEP administrators' and ESL teachers' perceptions of NNES teachers' strengths and weaknesses. Participants also wished that preservice teachers were given more firsthand teaching opportunities. IEP administrators emphasized experience, not first language, as a determining factor in hiring decisions. Recommendations to improve teacher education and the teaching experience of NES and NNES teachers are offered.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it