Reflective Learning Views of Students, Teachers and Instructors: A Mixed-Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teachers need to modernize themselves and keep pace with changes in order to adapt themselves to the developing and changing system. At this juncture, the “reflective learning” model becomes an important element of teachers’ professional development. Since the concept of reflection was first used, it has increased its importance as an alternative approach to the existing models of learning that still hold sway. Nevertheless, when the studies that have been conducted over the years were consulted, it was determined that reflective learning is a difficult concept to define, because reflection is an abstract concept, the question how it is to be distinguished from one’s other thoughts and ideas assumes importance. For this reason, research with 102 participants has been undertaken in order to ascertain the awareness of teachers, students and instructors of reflective learning. The participants are broken down thus: 35 students receiving education in the English Language and Literature department of Karabük University; 31 instructors providing in-service English classes in the same university’s Preparatory unit and other Faculties; and 36 English teachers serving in the secondary level schools in the Karabük province in Turkey. The participants have responded to a survey consisting of 33 questions. In the data analysis, SPSS and nonparametric Mann-Whitney-U, Kruskal-Wallis and Student Newman Kleus tests have been used. In addition, 2 teachers have been interviewed, the technique of content analysis has been used and the data has been analyzed by means of NVivo 12 Pro – computer assisted qualitative data analysis programme.
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".