Reflection of Teacher Cognition in EFL Vocabulary Instructional Practices in Indonesia
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
Teachers are highly influenced by their cognitions related to their ideas, to their views of the world, and to their values and conceptions of their environment. The study of teachers’ cognitions forms a part of the process of understanding how teachers conceptualize their work (Hassankiadeh, 2012). Therefore, this study attempted to investigate the cognitions the Indonesian EFL teachers hold about vocabulary instruction along with analyzing reflected cognitions in their teaching practices in classroom context. This qualitative study used semi-structured interview and direct classroom observation to obtain the data from four Indonesian EFL teachers of senior high school. It was revealed that the teachers have well-developed cognitions about EFL vocabulary instruction. It is shown from their beliefs, understanding, and perceptions about the role of vocabulary, its importance in EFL teaching and learning including what words are taught and how words are taught. Moreover, some aspects of their cognitions about vocabulary teaching emerge to be in congruence with their vocabulary teaching practices although some inconsistencies have been identified as well.
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 | 0.001 | 0.044 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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