Recurring Topics in English Language Teachers' Written Teaching Philosophy Statements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study analyzed in-service English as an additional language (EAL) teachers’ written teaching philosophy (TP) statements in order to identify the dominant topics that comprise this supporting genre, as well as the use of personal pronouns and possessive adjectives. The sample included 27 in-service EAL teachers’ TPs who were currently teaching, primarily, in the context of higher education and intensive English programs in North American settings. Each sentence was coded for a dominant topic, leading to the creation of 24 categories. To capture the unique characteristics of this genre, we created three success groups (i.e., Most successful, Successful, and Least successful) and compared their contents. Moreover, the first and last five topics for each TP for the three groups were compared, thus, establishing a pattern of opening and closing topics. Finally, we drew on corpus tools to uncover the manipulation of specific lexical features of this genre: the use of personal pronouns and possessive adjectives. The most prominent topics across the three groups included Teaching beliefs, Learning beliefs, Beliefs about learners, and Teacher growth. Differences were identified between the three groups in terms of both topics and organization.
 La présente étude a analysé des énoncés écrits de professeurs d’anglais langue additionnelle (ALA) en poste décrivant leur philosophie pédagogique (PP) en vue d’identifier les thèmes dominants qui composent ce genre complémentaire ainsi que l’utilisation de pronoms personnels et d’adjectifs possessifs. L’échantillon portait sur la philosophie pédagogique de 27 professeurs d’ALA en poste présentement actifs, et ce, principalement dans le contexte de l’enseignement supérieur et des programmes d’anglais intensif dans des milieux nord-américains. Chaque phrase a été codifiée en fonction de son thème dominant, ce qui a amené la création de 24 catégories. Afin de saisir les caractéristiques particulières de ce genre, nous avons créé trois catégories de succès (c.-à-d. Succès supérieur, Succès, et Succès inférieur) et en avons comparé les contenus. De plus, les premiers et cinq derniers thèmes des trois groupes portant sur chaque PP ont été comparés, ce qui a permis d’établir un schéma de thèmes d’ouverture et de fermeture. Enfin, nous avons recouru à des outils de corpus textuel pour découvrir la manipulation des caractéristiques linguistiques particulières de ce genre : l’utilisation de pronoms personnels et d’adjectifs possessifs. Les thèmes les plus importants dans les trois groupes étaient les Croyances sur l’enseignement, les Croyances sur l’apprentissage, les Croyances sur les apprenants, et le Perfectionnement professionnel des professeurs. Des différences ont été identifiées entre les trois groupes tant au niveau des thèmes qu’à celui de l’organisation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".