MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134245628 · doi:10.5430/jct.v10n1p56

The Needs Analysis of English Preparatory School Instructors Towards Professional Skills in Higher Education

2021· article· en· W3134245628 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Curriculum and Teaching · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEducation Practices and Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical educationContent analysisPsychologyFeelingNeeds analysisProfessional developmentQuality (philosophy)Descriptive statisticsQualitative researchPedagogyMathematics educationMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many factors affect providing high-quality English education and rendering it sustainable. One of these factors is undoubtedly ensuring the professional development of the English language instructors. An important way to guarantee professional development is through needs analysis. Needs analysis is of utmost significance in determining the professional skills that English preparatory instructors require to develop and taking the necessary steps. In this regard, the aim of the study is to determine the professional skills that these instructors need to develop in higher education. Qualitative research method was used in the research to unearth the opinions, thoughts, views and feelings of instructors on professional skills to be improved. Since the research covered only one unit of a higher education institution, a holistic single case design was preferred. Participants included English preparatory school instructors, administrators, students, and senior members of the Faculty of Education. Convenience and criterion sampling techniques were used in the selection of the participants. In the study in which interview technique was used, an interview form was implemented in order to ascertain the professional skills. The data collection process was carried out over the course of eight weeks. Descriptive analysis and content analysis techniques were used in data analysis. While the opinions of the English preparatory school stakeholders were shared via verbatim quotation technique during the descriptive analysis process, the professional skills that English preparatory instructors require to improve were determined via the content analysis of the participants’ relevant opinions. As a result of the research, professional skills that these instructors need to enhance were identified.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.444
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.281 · 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