English Language Teachers’ Perceptions of PAAET’s Professional Development Programs: Implications on Guideline Formulation for Training Programs
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teachers’ professional development is a life-long and continuous process in which teachers are expected to upgrade their knowledge, master new skills, and change their practices, since advancement in their teaching career has an impact on their students’ achievement and education reform. This study determines the teachers’ assessment of professional development programs at the Public Authority for Applied Education and Training (PAAET) in Kuwait. The study utilized a quantitative research method using a survey questionnaire, which was distributed online to 31 in-service teachers. Results indicated the infrequency of teachers’ development program in the institution. Teachers who had stayed at least nine years had undergone 1 to 3 training programs. Training on soft skills is perceived to be relatively more effective than training on hard skills. Nevertheless, majority of the teachers attended relatively more hard-skills training than soft-skills training programs. Thus, hard-skills training should further be planned to improve effectiveness since more training is provided in these areas.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it