A Journey to Professional Teachers: Practical Preparation for Pre-service English Language Education Teaching in Thailand Andaman Coastal Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since an eventual goal of the study was to develop practical preparation for the pre- service of English language teachers to continuing professional teaching, self-efficacy of teachers in different professional development phases, were investigated as well as their promoting factors and hindrances to understand contextual circumstances. The researcher employed a mix-method in collecting data. Two types of questionnaires (α = 0.9428, 0.9137) concerning central tasks of teacher profession development in preparational and professional phases were administered to 125 student-teachers of English and 85 EFL teachers diverse teaching experience. Five pre-service teachers and eleven EFL teachers participated in semi-structured interviews, and relevant written documents were analysed. Both obtained quantitative and qualitative data was compared and contrasted to uncover the participants’ self-rating scales and positive and negative factors affecting their professional development in each professional phase. The study also found that there was mismatched preparation of the English student-teacher programs and their contextual needs. The findings suggested educators and policy makers to align the gaps between the curriculum and contextual practices of problems. The first track must focus on teaching English pronunciation, reading for cognitive processing development, handwriting and writing that develop talks in class, and linguistic structured learning designs. On the other hand, EFL learning management must be highlighted particularly in learners’ factors of individual and cultural backgrounds, interpersonal skills, ways to keep discipline in classes, positive and negative reinforcement, and being a reflective teacher.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".