The Multilayered Peer Coaching Model and the In-Service Professional Development of Tertiary EFL Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing need to learn English worldwide leads to the rapid development in the field of Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL). Teachers in this profession are required to reach a much higher level of professionalism now, and their in-service professional development can be an effective approach to updating their professional learning and practice. However, many existing programs for in-service professional development could not always reach their goals as expected. Therefore, this study aimed at developing and evaluating the Multilayered Peer Coaching Model (the MPC Model) for the tertiary EFL teachers to have their in-service professional development. Five phases based on the instructional system design theories were followed for developing this model, and the data for its efficiency were collected from such instruments as tests, observations, teacher’s logs, researcher’s field notes, and questionnaires which were responded by the EFL teachers and the students at Guiyang University in China. The results from this study showed that the MPC Model had positive impacts on the tertiary EFL teachers’ in-service professional development.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".