MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2566631668 · doi:10.5430/wje.v7n1p1

Views of Teacher-Trainees on Clothing and Textiles Education in two Teacher Education Universities in Ghana

2016· article· en· W2566631668 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Phyllis Forster, Rosemary Quarcoo, Elizabeth Lani Ashong, Victoria Ghanney

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Education · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Roles and Identity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternshipClothingSubject (documents)Teacher educationPsychologyPedagogyHigher educationScale (ratio)Mathematics educationMedical educationPolitical scienceMedicineLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study explored the views of teacher-trainees on Clothing and Textiles (C&T) education in two teacher educationuniversities in Ghana. The objectives were to find out whether pre-tertiary Sewing/C&T lessons provided them withsmall-scale business skills, and foundation for higher education, they could teach Sewing/C&T competently oninternship, identify their sources of motivation, and elicit their suggestions to improve on the subject. Data collectedrevealed that one-tenth and two-thirds acquired small-scale business skills from their lessons at basic and secondarylevels respectively. About 71% indicated they taught the subject competently on internship and career intention wastheir main motivating factor for the subject. For improvement, there is need to provide adequate modern facilities andcompetent teachers with current ideas in content and pedagogy, and good teacher relationship with students andindustry. Other suggestions were, students should remain focused and attract others to the subject through theirdressing. Feed-back from the teacher trainees indicates that Sewing/C&T education in Ghana provides occupationalskills and foundation for further studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of EducationSame topicGender Roles and Identity StudiesFrench-language works237,207