The Development of a Training Package for Student-Teacher Counseling Skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purposes of the study were 1) To develop a training package for counseling skills of student teachers, 2) to study the effectiveness of the developed training package on student teachers’ counseling skills, and 3) to study student teachers’ satisfaction with learning with the developed package. The study was conducted using a combination of the developmental and a quasi-experimental design. Two groups of participants were assigned to the study. Group one consisted of 3 experts taking part in the training package evaluation. The second group consisted of 32 student-teachers majoring in learning psychology who were selected using voluntary random sampling. The instruments include a training package for counseling skills of student-teachers, a training package evaluation form, a pre-post test, and a satisfaction questionnaire. The mean score and standard deviation were used to analyze the data gained from the training package evaluation form and satisfaction questionnaire. A paired-samples t-test was used to study the effectiveness of the developed training package. The results of the study could be concluded that the training package was developed with the potential to improve the participants’ counseling skills. At the implementation stage, the participants’ skills were positively affected after participating in the training program. Moreover, they were satisfied with the learning activities throughout the training package. The results of the study could be implicated in teacher education and research studies aiming to understand how counselling skills could be developed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".