Determining the Content of Induction Programs to Improve Instructional Performance: A Case in Seoul, Korea
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
This study represents an initial effort to determine the content of induction programs to improve beginning teachers' instructional performance. The study investigated the perception of beginning teachers' instructional performance problems and explored its relationships with demographic characteristics such as years of teaching experience and grade level. Two hundred, eighty-nine beginning teachers who were in their first four years of teaching experience in Seoul, Korea were analyzed. Results revealed (a) teaching students with special needs and with learning disabilities needs to be addressed as the most essential contents of induction programs; (b) unlike other items, these two items as instructional performance problems tend to be critical as years of teaching experience increase; (c) induction programs need to be continued for at least two years; and (d) no significant difference was found between new elementary teachers and new secondary teachers. Finally, the study includes some implications on practice and on future research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 it