Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research explored the reflective practice of student teachers on efforts to improve how student teachers learn from their experiences of tutorial teaching in school. Tutoring means teachers working with individual students to support their learning. During this project, eight student teachers tried to help underachieving high school students improve their vocabulary confidence, learning skills and their memorising strategies so that the students could remember more vocabulary and use it more appropriately. Meanwhile, their self-confidence in English language learning could be developed. 16 junior high school students in Grade One were tutored once a week for 30 minutes, more than 10 successive weeks on the use of certain English lexical items. The tutorials took place from March to June in 2010 at a high school in an EFL (English as a Foreign Language) context. Eight student teachers were the tutors providing instruction, practice in pronunciation and vocabulary usage. The students who received the tuition made significant progress in word recognition. The results indeed showed that the young learners had benefitted from the eight student teachers’ teaching methods. This project was intended to help junior high school students learn more vocabulary through the tuition of student teachers. Its success lies also in the fact that the eight student teachers were able to realise their ideas about effective vocabulary teaching and allowed them to appreciate the value of individual tuition.
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 | 0.022 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".