MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989245229 · doi:10.5539/elt.v6n2p14

The Effect of Length of Exposure to CALL Technology on Young Iranian EFL Learners’ Grammar Gain

2012· article· en· W1989245229 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Karim Sadeghi, Masoumeh Dousti

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrammarContemplationPsychologyControl (management)Mathematics educationTest (biology)CurriculumSignificant differencePedagogyLinguisticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsStatisticsTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the twenty-first century, integration of technology into education is a force worthy of contemplation. Among all the possible technological tools that can be integrated into EFL classes, computers seem to have achieved a more dominant position. One of the outstanding features of computers is their potential to present educational games and to add fun to grammar learning. This study investigated the possible effects of the integration of CALL technology on young Iranian elementary EFL learners' grammar gain. Moreover, it examined the role of length of exposure to find an optimum balance for the proper amount of CALL integration to language activities. One control and two experimental groups, each consisted of 15 participants, were engaged. One of the experimental groups used CALL technology for twice as long as the other group. 'Family and Friends 2' with its accompanying MultiRom was utilized in the experimental groups. This software presented computer-based grammar activities. All the participants tried their answers in separate immediate as well as delayed post-tests. The results of one way ANOVA demonstrated significant differences between control and experimental groups in the immediate post-test. The findings of the delayed post-test showed that a significant difference did exist between the control group and the second experimental group. Furthermore, the length of exposure was found to be influential. The results of this study provide some insights for teachers and administrators to review their curricula, approaches, and educational tools, and to consider the possibility of incorporating CALL technology into their teaching environments.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.226
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations21
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicEducational Games and GamificationFrench-language works237,207