Human Relations in Instructional Supervision: EFL Trainees’ Appraisal of a TEFL Practicum
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
Instructional or educational supervision is a valuable training tool that can be used to support pre-service teacher education. When it is well implemented, it helps student teachers develop self-awareness, self-assessment and self-reflection skills. This study explores a group of 18 Beninese EFL trainees’ perceptions of instructional supervision and their practicum experiences. It also examines the nature of the relations between them and their supervisors. A mixed method research design is used for the study. The data are collected through three instruments: a questionnaire addressed to the participant EFL trainees, the written records of their practicum experiences, and a follow-up interview to 6 of them who are randomly selected. The findings reveal a lot of discrepancies between the type of supervision they expected and the one they experienced during the practicum. Some useful suggestions are discussed to contribute to a better understanding of the supervisory process and the role of the supervisor in a practicum.
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 | 0.002 | 0.046 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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