Prospects and Challenges towards Professional Development of English Lecturers in Islamic Tertiary Education in Indonesia
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
Teaching is a complex career in which teachers and those involved in teaching are required to engage in professional development programs to improve teaching competences and guarantee effective teaching. This qualitative case study interviewed top management in higher education institutions and thirty lecturers from three universities. Findings generated through in-depth interviews and focus group discussion (FGD) suggesting several strategies taken and programs joint by English lecturers to improve their professional competences. Some of the strategies taken by university management are improving qualification through doctorate programs, article publications, peer discussions, reviews of journal articles, exploration of educational websites, and joining professional associations. In addition, there are some other programs engaged by lecturers, such as international conferences, workshops, and research projects. In addition, lecturers reported that they improved teaching awareness and became better scholars, allowing them to self-correct their own mistakes. Finally, this study also found that institutional supports are obvious in some universities, while in some others are still lacking.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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