The Perspective of Pre-Service Teachers through Synchronous Learning According to Coaching and Mentoring: SAIFON Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aims to enhance pre-service teachers' English language teaching ability in the 21st Century toward SAIFON guidelines. The population consists of 40 Rajabhat University pre-service teachers, and the sample group consists of 25 students of fifth-year pre-service teachers. They studied in the second semester of the 2020 academic year. The tools used in the research are 1) Need analysis, 2) In-depth interview, and  3) Field notes. Mixed Method research includes Qualitative Research,  In-depth interviews, Field notes, using content analysis and coding techniques for grounded theory, and quantitative research consists of a Need analysis.   The results revealed that:       Pre-service teachers enhance teaching English ability in the 21st Century toward SAIFON guidelines that consisted of eight aspects: 1) S = Survey the teachers' needs, 2) A= Associating with a plan, 3)  I = Instructing teaching strategies, 4) F = Feedback on teaching demonstration, 5) O = Observing teaching in the actual context, and 6) N = Notifying problems and solutions. Furthermore, it included pre-service teachers' perspectives on Synchronous Learning in three aspects: impressions, problems, and solutions.
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 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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".