A Responsive Internship Program from the Viewpoint of Beginning Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The final semester of a four-year education course involves a student teaching or internship period that poses a number of challenges to cooperating teachers, college supervisors, student teachers, and school administrators, among other stakeholders. This stage connects the theoretical and practical in real-world learning environments, acting as a pillar in the professional development of future educators. A seamless transition from theory to practice is made possible by responsive internship programs that integrate classroom experiences with pre-service training in response to evolving educational demands. This study explores the perspectives and experiences of pre-service teachers in internship programs using a qualitative phenomenological approach. Semi-structured interviews with stakeholders in Visayas, Philippines provide priceless information about program effectiveness and areas for improvement. Important issues come to light, highlighting the need of preparing teacher interns with flexible abilities, incorporating technology, learner-centered approaches, encouraging cooperation between organizations and educational institutions, and professionalism. Experiential learning and exposure to a range of student populations are essential for refining instructional strategies and fostering professional development. The study provides valuable information that may be utilized to improve internship programs, which in turn helps to foster the professional growth of new teachers and improves students’ educational achievement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".