MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912283842 · doi:10.18806/tesl.v35i2.1289

Blog-Mediated Reflection for Professional Development: Exploring Themes and Criticality of L2 Teachers' Reflective Practice

2018· article· en· W2912283842 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTESL Canada Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyProfessional developmentReflection (computer programming)PedagogyTeacher educationReflective practiceMathematics educationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reflection is a key component of teacher quality assessment and a venue for professional development. Among many tools for teacher reflection, keeping blogs as a user-friendly, technology-enhanced tool has recently come to the forefront in teacher education. To contribute to the body of literature on the potentiality ofblogs for teacher professional development, this study sought to investigate the use of blogs by Iranian English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers to provide aperspective on the themes in their reflection-on-action and the degree of criticality of their reflection. To this end, 32 male and female in-service EFL teachers, teaching at different language institutes, voluntarily agreed to post their classroom experiences to a blog over a 3-month period. Content analysis of the reflection tags resulted in the identification of three main reflective categories, each including a number of themes: (a) teacher-oriented category (e.g., teachers’ sharing emotions, classroom management, teaching methods and techniques, use of first language [L1], and instructional ethics); (b) learner-oriented category (e.g., learners’ classroom participation, language skills, motivation, and emotions); and (c) contextoriented category (e.g., assessment system, textbooks, classroom facilities, and teachers’ working conditions). Moreover, the levels of reflection embedded into the tags were explored using a modified version of a reflection model proposed by Lee (2005). The findings revealed that teachers were more critical (71%) than descriptive (29%) in their reflections. These findings have implications for teachers’ reflection and their professional development. La réflexion est à la fois un élément essentiel de l’évaluation de la qualité chez les enseignantes et enseignants et un domaine de perfectionnement professionnel. La tenue d’un blogue, activité conviviale facilitée par la technologie, s’est récemment imposée comme un nouvel outil de réflexion de premier ordre dans le domaine de la formation des enseignantes et enseignants. Visant à ajouter à la littérature existante sur le potentiel des blogues pour le perfectionnement professionnel du corps enseignant, la présente étude se proposait d’examiner le recours au blogue de professeurs iraniens d’anglais langue étrangère (EFL) afin de fournir un éclairage sur les thèmes de leur réflexion sur l’action et sur le degré de criticité de leur réflexion. Dans ce but, 32 professeurs et professeures d’anglais langue étrangère en cours d’emploi dans divers instituts linguistiques ont volontairement consenti à affi cher sur un blogue leurs expériences en classe pendant une période de 3 mois. L’analyse du contenu des balises de réflexion a permis d’identifier trois principals catégories de réflexion dont chacune portait sur un certain nombre de thèmes: (a) catégorie relative aux enseignants (par ex., partage d’émotions par l’enseignante ou l’enseignant, gestion de la classe, méthodes et techniques d’enseignement, utilisation de la première langue L1] et éthique pédagogique); (b) catégorie relative aux apprenants (par ex., participation des apprenants en classe, compétences linguistiques, motivation et émotions); et (c) catégorie relative au contexte (par ex., système d’évaluation, manuels scolaires, équipements de salle de classe et conditions de travail des enseignants). Les niveaux de réflexion intégrés dans ces balises ont de plus été explorés à l’aide d’une version modifiée d’un modèle de réflexion proposé par Lee (2005). L’étude a permis de constater que les réflexions des enseignants étaient davantage critiques (71 %) que descriptives (29 %). Ces conclusions ont des implications pour la réflexion des enseignants et pour leur perfectionnement professionnel.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.346 · 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