Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on teacher cognition, which mainly focuses on identifying what teachers think, know and believe, is essential to understanding teachers’ cognitive framework as it relates to the instructional choices they make. The aim of this study is to find out the beliefs of non-native speaker teachers of English on grammar instruction and to explain how those reported beliefs are influenced by particular demographic factors. 75 non-native speaker teachers of English participated in the study. Data was collected by a 5-Likert type questionnaire with 15 items that addressed a range of key issues in grammar instruction, particularly direct (explicit) or indirect (integrated) grammar instruction. The study has provided a number of valuable insights, particularly in relation to teachers’ beliefs about grammar instruction. The representation of grammar instruction that arises from participant teachers’ responses in this study is one characterized by systematic explicit grammar teaching with regular opportunities for grammar practice, not in isolation but in relation to skills-oriented work. Moreover, teachers with higher English proficiency levels and higher degrees (master’s/doctorate) showed stronger belief towards teaching grammar indirectly. Teachers of adult learners showed a higher tendency towards direct grammar teaching. Non-native speaker teachers preferred to use more indirect grammar instruction as they progressed academically and proficiency-wise, but they implemented more direct grammar teaching as the ages and level of their students increased.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".