MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2883396656 · doi:10.5539/ass.v14n8p102

Pre-Service English Teachers' Perceptions, Obstacles and Experiences When Teaching English in the EFL Context

2018· article· en· W2883396656 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rashed Zannan Alghamdy

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionContext (archaeology)PsychologyEnglish languageService (business)Medical educationMathematics educationPedagogyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article has identified the opinions, perceptions obstacles and experiences of the EFL pre-service English teacher who participated in a training program in EFL context. In this study, only qualitative data was gathered. The participants in this study were 7 pre-service English teachers aged 23-28 years, from seven boys’ schools in Al-Baha city in Saudi Arabia. The researcher interviewed them at the end of the semester of the training program. The findings of this study were that some EFL pre-service English teachers felt that the training program enabled them to increase their confidence and social skills, enabling them to gain more experiences.However, there were many disadvantages, barriers and obstacles to practicing pre-service teaching in the training program. These included: some EFL students were naughty and they caused problems in the classroom, the EFL students’ English level was very weak such that they could not communicate in the language and even they also could not understand the teacher’s instructions. Being in the training program, and studying at the college at the same time was very challenging for the pre-service English teachers. Also, some their main teachers were not willing to guide them. They were also often shy and embarrassed before the students. There were claims that the preparation book was difficult for most pre-service teachers to prepare. Most complained that they lacked the resources they required to prepare for their lessons.

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)0.002
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social Science→Same topicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning→French-language works237,207→