Teacher’s and Students’ Beliefs on English for General Academic Purposes: The Case of Iranian University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>This study was framed in the sociocultural theory to look into the evolution of L2 learners’ beliefs about the general English course during a term. One hundred ninety-eight male and female university students and their general English course teacher were randomly selected as the participants of the study. Data were gathered through the administration of Horwitz’s (1988) BALLI questionnaire. Among the participants, 38 students were invited to take part in semi-structured interview sessions and fill in an open-ended questionnaire at the beginning and end of the term. Descriptive statics were applied to precisely analyze the quantitative data based on the questionnaire. In order to qualitatively analyze the data, the grounded theory methodology was utilized to code the data and find the main categories in line with the research questions of the study. Findings concluded that all the learners changed their simplistic beliefs about the general English course highlighting the attention to grammar and vocabulary. In fact, the teacher believed in teaching strategies to pave the way for the learners to comprehend the text better and apply the strategies while reading. The teacher’s meditational activity assisted the learners to evolve their simplistic beliefs and be able to benefit from reading strategies for better comprehension. Awareness-raising activities should be done in terms of teachers’ and students’ beliefs about EGAP (English for general academic purposes) to equip L2 learners with better educational environments resulting in their enjoyment of the learning process.</p>
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".