MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126133456 · doi:10.5539/ies.v7n12p84

The Understanding of Curriculum Philosophy among Trainee Teachers in Regards to Soft Skills Embedment

2014· article· en· W2126133456 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aminuddin Hassan, Marina Maharoff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Islamic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoft skillsCurriculumBachelorQualitative researchPsychologyMathematics educationMedical educationPedagogySkills managementSociologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Curriculum philosophy may assist in learning practices that coincide with the philosophy of educational institution and community. This study was aimed to understand how the teacher trainees who pursued Bachelor of Teaching (PISMP) understand the embedment of soft skills into learning activities for core courses in Malaysian Institutes of Teacher Education (IPGMs). This is necessary because embedding soft skills is sometimes considered to be out of interest among the teacher trainees that may lead to neglect the aspects of soft skills development among them. The study was conducted using a case study methodology through the qualitative approach. The respondents comprised of nine teacher trainees from the final year of study. The results yielded the teacher trainees’ beliefs and identified the ways soft skills were embedded among them as they pursued their course. The results of this study allowed those involved in the development of teacher trainees’ soft skills to generate ideas to develop a model to embed soft skills, in line with the interpretation of soft skills, for the teacher trainees in the IPGM.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicEducation and Islamic StudiesFrench-language works237,207