Challenges in Ethiopian Teacher Education Pedagogy: Resistance Factors to Innovative Teaching-Learning Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quality is at the heart of any education and training system. It influences what trainees learn, how well they learn and what benefits they draw from their education and training. Whether a particular education and training system is of high or low quality can be judged in terms of input, output and process. Until recently, however, much discussion of educational quality has been centered on only system inputs in terms of the provision of teachers, educators, teaching materials and other facilities, and on output in terms of trainees’ achievement. Little or no attention is given to the teaching-learning process, the dimension which involves what really happens in the classroom. This study thus aims at finding out the extent to which innovative approach to teaching and learning are employed in the Ethiopian primary teacher training classrooms, to identify the factors that affect its implementation, and to recommend better ways and means for further improvement. In conclusion, the study found that traditional lecture methods, in which teachers talk and students listen, dominate most classrooms. The common obstacles to the employment of innovative methods of teaching as found out by this study are: the Ethiopian tradition of teaching, lack of institutional support, and learning resources, teachers’ lack of expertise, inappropriate curricular materials and student teachers’ lack of prior experience to actively participate in the teaching and learning process.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".