Teachers’ Lived Experiences about Teaching-Learning Process in Multi-Grade Classes
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
This study seeks to recognize teachers’ lived experiences about teaching-learning process in multi-grade classes. The approach of the study is qualitative under the rubric of phenomenological studies. The statistical population consisted of the teachers of multi-grade classes in a non-prosperous province and a prosperous one. 14 teachers were selected using criterion sampling technique for an interview. The interviews were recorded and transcribed with the interviewees’ permission; and they were analyzed using Creswell data analysis. In order to evaluate the validity of the questions, the viewpoints of experts in the field of educational sciences as well as some teachers experienced in multi-grade classes were taken into account. The reliability was approved through examination by the participants and asking from counterparts. The results showed that teachers of multi-grade classes in both provinces had similar views on using teaching methods, determining learning activities and grouping methods. However, they did not have the same views on determining the type of learning materials and resources. The results show that in multi-grade classes various teaching methods such as peer teaching and integrated teaching, leading resources and materials such as the local community, nature, and discarded materials and objects, different grouping methods such as adjacent grouping, row grouping, and sex grouping, and finally various learning activities including self learning and peer learning are utilized. Multi-grade teachers in the two provinces have similar viewpoints regarding teaching methods, learning activities, and grouping methods, but are of different viewpoints on kinds of learning materials and resources.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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