Student-Teachers’ Experiences and Strategies of Managing Disruptive Behaviours in Tanzania Secondary Schools.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on student-teachers’ experiences during a six-week teaching practicum of disruptive classroom behaviours by students in selected Tanzanian secondary schools and the strategies that the student-teachers employed to manage them. Questionnaire and semi-structured interviews were employed to collect data from 70 student-teachers. Using qualitative thematic analysis and descriptive quantitative analysis strategies, it was revealed that student-teachers did very little to enhance appropriate classroom behaviours. Instead, they relied on punitive strategies such as punishment to deal with disrupting students. Reliance on punitive measures limited their ability to use positive feedback, tolerance and relational support strategies, which are regarded as more effective in fostering appropriate classroom behaviours by empowering students to take control of their own behaviour. These findings have important implications for teacher training programmes, and students learning. The paper concludes by asserting that like any other lessons, appropriate behaviours in classrooms need to be taught and nurtured not simply demanded.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".