Developing and Validating a Survey of Korean Early Childhood English Teachers’ Knowledge
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
<p>The main purpose of this study is to develop and validate a valid measure of the early childhood (EC) English teacher knowledge. Through extensive literature review on second/foreign language (L2/FL) teacher knowledge, early childhood teacher knowledge and early childhood language teacher knowledge, and semi-structured interviews from current early childhood English teacher, the initial survey questionnaire was developed. Then, think-aloud interviews were conducted with samples from four groups with different teaching experience as they took the survey to see whether or not they understood the survey questions and whether or not the survey questions/statements represented their professional knowledge accurately. Lastly, a finalized survey was distributed to 40 current early childhood English teachers (K-2) in Korea. The theoretical framework of teacher knowledge was drawn upon Grossman’s (1999) “model of teacher knowledge” such as subject matter knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and knowledge of context. The data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics, Cronbach-alpha, and split-half. The findings will show subcomponent of teacher knowledge, characteristics of the participants and survey items’ reliability. The implications of analyzing teacher knowledge survey to gain insight into developing curriculum in early childhood English teacher education.</p>
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 | 0.015 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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