MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785715976 · doi:10.5539/elt.v11n2p156

Investigating Pre-service EFL Teachers’ Self-concepts within the Framework of Teaching Practicum in Turkish Context

2018· article· en· W2785715976 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cevdet Yılmaz

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Methods and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPracticumPsychologyTurkishDynamismContext (archaeology)Mathematics educationEnglish as a foreign languagePedagogyForeign languageLanguage educationLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study aimed at understanding the nature and potential dynamism of five pre-service EFL teachers’ self-concepts in the domain of English as a foreign language (EFL). To this end, the effects of pre-service teachers’ experiences gained alongside the practicum on their EFL self-concept development were also discussed. Data were generated in a case study research paradigm using journal entries and in-depth interviews. The major themes derived from the analysis of the data were indicative of pre-service teachers’ self-beliefs which profoundly affected their EFL self-concept development. These included the passion for English, the use of L1 and L2 in language teaching, and the critical experiences that the pre-service teachers had during the practicum. It was shown how the practicing teachers’ EFL self-beliefs can at once be dynamic and also stable, depending on the type of beliefs investigated. The study concludes by suggesting the need to help EFL pre-service teachers to form positive but realistic self-concepts within the framework of EFL teacher training.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.366 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicEducational Methods and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207