Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines a four-month program of pedagogical training for Japanese Teachers of English (JTEs) in Canada based on a yardstick provided for communicative language teaching (CLT) in-service education and training (INSET) programs for teachers who teach English as a foreign language (EFL). In particular, with the purpose of determining the overall effectiveness of the Canadian pedagogical program and offering recommendations for future ones, this study examines three dimensions of the four-month program: the program planning dimension, the program execution dimension, and the cultural dimension. Three paradigms are used to compare cultural and educational differences between Japan and Canada: the interpretation-based versus transmission-based culture paradigm (Wedell, 2003), the collectionist versus integrationist educational paradigm (Holliday, 1994a), and the routine/uncertain culture versus non-routine/certain culture paradigm (Sato, 2002). This qualitative study indicates that while the program meets almost all of the recommended criteria, especially in the execution dimension, a more thorough knowledge of Japanese educational culture and a re-examination of some assumptions on which the program is constructed may be useful to program planners and trainers in helping JTEs overcome barriers to incorporating CLT practices into their lessons.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".