MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165406870 · doi:10.5539/jel.v10n4p40

Project-Based Learning and E-Portfolios for Preservice Teachers in Japanese Language Education

2021· article· en· W3165406870 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amonrat Manoban

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationAction researchPsychologyPedagogyLanguage acquisitionEducational technologyPortfolio

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study involved classroom action research that aimed to 1) develop the learning management competency for preservice teachers using the project-based learning approach and e-portfolios and 2) study the reflection of those preservice teachers in terms of learning management using the project-based learning approach and e-portfolios. The target groups for this research comprised 27 fourth-year students of the Teaching Japanese Language Program, Faculty of Education, Khon Kaen University. I divided the research tools into two categories: (a) tools for learning management (four learning management plans and teaching logs) and (b) tools for collecting research data (the portfolio assessment form and e-portfolios). The research results revealed the project-based learning approach and e-portfolios improved the Japanese language and culture learning management competency in each indicator at different levels; in addition, the results reflected the Japanese language and culture learning management focusing on learners and the use of learning materials stimulated learners’ interest and systematic working and helped them appreciate the efficiency of work and ability to work with others.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.411 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207