Exploring the Relationship Between Training, Beliefs, and Teachers’ Corrective Feedback Practices: A Case Study of a Novice and an Experienced ESL Teacher
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
Abstract: Using multiple data sources (observations, stimulated recalls, interviews), this study investigated the relationship between previous training, teaching experience, corrective feedback (CF) beliefs, and practices of a novice and an experienced ESL teacher. The findings revealed that both teachers provided similar amounts of CF and had comparable amounts of learner uptake and repair in their classes. However, the experienced teacher generated more teacher-learner interactions and more types of CF, which were also more balanced across linguistic targets. Teaching experience and teacher training did not appear to impact the teachers’ beliefs on the inefficacy of CF, while “apprenticeship of observation” seemed to have a greater influence on the belief systems of both teachers. These results point to several pedagogical implications for teacher education programs, which are discussed in the paper.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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