MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3043867505 · doi:10.5430/ijhe.v9n5p134

Partnerships Between Teacher Education Universities And Schools In Practicum To Train Pre-Service Teachers Of Vietnam

2020· article· en· W3043867505 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vũ Thị Mai Hường, Nguyen Thi Thanh Tung, Tieu Thị My Hong, Duong Hai Hung

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Higher Education · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCollaborative Teaching and Inclusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPracticumGeneral partnershipTeacher educationCurriculumDiversification (marketing strategy)PedagogyInterdependenceProfessional developmentHigher educationMedical educationPolitical scienceSociologyPsychologyMedicineBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Teacher education universities and schools have traditionally been the main sites of teacher learning in Vietnam. This relationship is the key in the process national curriculum innovation. The purpose of this research is to determine the relationship between teacher education universities and schools in Vietnam, in regard to partnering for the delivery of teacher education adapting national curriculum innovation in Vietnam. Data will be collected through questions involving 243 participants comprising student teachers, university lecturers and mentors. The result of this paper also uses semi-structured interviews to draw conclusions. The findings show that there is a model for teacher education universities - schools cooperation in teacher preparation. However, the partnership is limited by such factors such as planning, mentoring, practicum, teacher education universities visits to schools, communication and inconsistencies that seemed to characters the relationship. The findings suggest that the partnership between pedagogy universities and schools can be enhanced by recognizing the interdependent nature of the relationship, the diversification of areas of universities - schools joint activity, and increased closely conversations between the partners about problems which are suitable to the arrangement. The result of the research may provide insights into factors that focus on undermining the effectiveness of partnerships, as well as the implications of these for the professional development of prospective teachers.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.347 · 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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Higher EducationSame topicCollaborative Teaching and InclusionFrench-language works237,207