Development of Technical College Students’ Communicative Competence
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
The role of communication has increased in modern society due to the growth and expansion of interpersonal, inter-regional and international relations in politics, economy, science and culture. In this regard, one of the priorities of educational policy is a radical improvement in the system of vocational education aimed on training of highly qualified personnel for the country's economy. The main result of the educational institutions activities should not be a system of knowledge and skills, but a set of core competencies as the expected learning outcomes. The effective solution of this problem in a technical college depends not only on the training of future engineers for using production technologies and working with modern technology, but also on the development of specialists’ culture of communication. Dynamic character of life and professional activity requires communication skills, the ability to rapidly integrate into the production team, willingness to adapt to new working conditions and regulate the relations between people in the process of joint activities. The article reveals the essence and the basic characteristics of communicative competence, characteristics and development model of technical college students’ communicative competence. It also considers creating educational communicative space as a leading factor in the development of students' communicative competence. The study identified and disclosed criteria indicators (organizational and cognitive, emotional, behavioral and speech) and levels (high, medium, low) of students’ communicative competence. The results of the experimental work suggest the viability and validity of the educational environment to develop effectively the students’ communicative competence.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 it