MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1960091148

Teachers-Learners‟ Evaluation of Modular EFL Program (A Course in Deeds and Documents Translation)

2012· article· en· W1960091148 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gholam-Reza Abbasian, Sahar Sadat AfsharImani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of academic and applied studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEducational Assessment and Improvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsViewpointsMathematics educationComputer scienceLikert scalePsychologyMedical educationPedagogy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modular EFL Program exercised nationwide by the University of Applied Science & Technology is an innovation in Iranian educational system which has managed to offer specialized language education in a specific field entitled as Audio-Visual Translation Course. Contrary to significant academic achievements, the program has been subject to continuous scholarly criticisms. However, no explicit empirical studies can be traced on both internal and external validity measures as well as on the extent of compatibility of the course with the standards and criteria of scientific educational program. In a bid to address these issues, this study was conducted to evaluate the program from the perspectives of both the respective teachers and students. The teachers‟ perspectives were examined on the basis of five fundamental criteria including 1) Admission Requirements, 2) Program Content, 3) Program Resources, 4) Program Instruction/Evaluation Methods, and 5) Graduation Requirements/Employment Requirements. The students‟ perspectives addressed their needs and problems in four skills and also their viewpoints toward the program content and its efficiency. Methodologically, the study is based on the requirements of both qualitative and quantitative research paradigms. To this end, a sample of 30 teachers enjoying at least five years of offering the course attempted a 22-item Likert-scaled questionnaire accommodating subcategories of the five macro criteria followed by open-ended written protocol commenting spaces for qualitative data. A sample of 200 students was also given a 125-item-need analysis questionnaire followed by three open-ended course evaluation questions. The findings revealed controversies over all the macro-criteria and compatibility of the program with these well-established standards; suggesting exercise of comprehensive revisits and modifications on all the aspects of the program as a whole.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.250
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of academic and applied studiesSame topicEducational Assessment and ImprovementFrench-language works237,207