ELT Preservice Teachers’ Conceptualization of Teaching Practice: A Metaphor Analysis of the Dynamics of Teaching Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Different from other studies on the metaphor analysis of pre-service teachers and their cognition on teaching, the present study adopted a larger perspective and investigated their conceptualization of the dynamics of the practicum, namely teaching practice, mentors, supervisor, students, lesson plan and materials. 35 pre-service teachers were asked to complete a metaphor elicitation task on six dynamics of teaching practice. Applying the conceptual metaphor analysis, 189 metaphors were determined and categorized for each concept. The overall results indicated that the pre-service teachers could conceptualize their beliefs on teaching practice dynamics referring to their experience. In line with their beliefs and attitudes, they chose the metaphors with positive or negative connotations. Some participants were positive about the practicum while some described the practicum with negative affective metaphors under the categories of pitfall and vagueness. Besides, the participants mostly used cognitive metaphors describing the authority of mentors and supervisors. In addition to the affective affirmative metaphors on the students, the participants described the students as out-of-control, referring to the classroom management problems. The contributions of lesson plan and material use were mostly appreciated with positive metaphors but the metaphors categorized under uncertainty and redundancy called for the participants’ need for supervision and support. The results of the study revealed that the pre-service teachers’ beliefs and performances were apt to be influenced with what they experience during the practicum. Through an understanding of pre-service teachers’ conceptualization regarding their experience, training and applications could be improved.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".