MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015105083 · doi:10.5539/res.v7n5p79

Development of Technical College Students’ Communicative Competence

2015· article· en· W2015105083 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nafisa T. Burganova, Akzam A. Valeev

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Methods and Teacher Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKazan Federal University
KeywordsCommunicative competencePsychologyInterpersonal communicationVocational educationCompetence (human resources)CognitionKnowledge managementPedagogySocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.269
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.174 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicEducational Methods and Teacher DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207