Evaluation of an ESP Course of Qur’anic Sciences and Tradition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluation is defined as matching process that matches the needs to available solutions. The present study is an attempt to evaluate English for specific purposes (ESP) course book on “the ESP Course of Qur’anic Sciences and Tradition” taught at some universities in Iran. To achieve this goal, a researcher-made questionnaire and an interview protocol was used. The sample of this study consisted of 80 master students majoring in Qur’anic Sciences and Tradition and 6 teachers teaching this course. The textbook was evaluated in terms of four factors including content and exercises, topics, skills and strategies, and teaching methodology. Data was collected through (i) a five-point Likert scale questionnaire consisting of 51 items and (ii) an interview protocol including some comprehensive questions. Regarding the presented results on the evaluation of ESP textbook it was found that general consensus is that the course book is appropriate for the students who should pass the Qur’anic Sciences and Tradition course. However, the students did not give high evaluation to some issues. The findings of this study would enable the ESP teachers to adapt the Qur’anic Sciences and Tradition textbook more relevant to the students’ needs.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".