MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041159632 · doi:10.1080/15348458.2020.1777872

EFL Student Teachers’ Professional Identity Construction: A Study of Student-Generated Metaphors Before and After Student Teaching

2020· article· en· W3041159632 on OpenAlexaff
Gang Zhu, Mary Rice, Guofang Li, Jinfei Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Language Identity & Education · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEducation Practices and Challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPracticumTransformative learningIdentity (music)PedagogyStudent teachingPsychologyStudent teacherProfessional developmentMathematics educationPerceptionTeaching methodTeacher educationSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metaphors are powerful windows to gain insight into EFL teachers’ professional identity constructions. This study examined 33 Chinese EFL student teachers’ (STs) self-generated metaphors about teaching before and after their student teaching. Before their teaching practicum experience, they were: (a) optimistic, but had naïve perceptions about their roles, (b) worried about their inadequacy to teach professionally, and (c) anxious about their relationship with cooperating teachers. Post-practicum, we noted (a) increased transformative perceptions about their role, (b) professional knowledge growth, (c) the participants explicated a broad array of challenges of building good student relationships, and (d) the placement-school contexts exert a significant influence on their identity formation. Implications for facilitating EFL student teachers’ professional identity (trans)formations during the field experiences are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Language Identity & EducationSame topicEducation Practices and ChallengesFrench-language works237,207