MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025448983 · doi:10.5539/ies.v6n7p200

A Content Analysis of the WH-Questions in the EFL Textbook of Horizons

2013· article· en· W2025448983 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Assessment and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHigher-order thinkingPsychologyContent analysisMathematics educationComprehensionCognitionTaxonomy (biology)Critical thinkingCognitive skillTeaching methodLinguisticsSocial scienceCognitively Guided InstructionSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study dealt with analysis of the study units in the textbook Horizons for 9th-grade students studying English in mixed ability classes. The study sought to examine the variety in the cognitive level represented by the WH-questions in the textbook according to Bloom's taxonomy. The study also attempted to examine the extent in which the WH-questions in the textbook emphasize high-level thinking, and whether the textbook aided students in developing cognitive skills.The study attempted to answer the following question:To what extent are the WH-questions in the six levels of the cognitive domain varied or frequent in the textbook of Horizons? Content analysis was conducted for the six study units in the textbook Horizons. The researcher chose the question as the unit for analysis for his research. The question is defined as a WH-question - in other words - a question beginning with a wh-word and ending with a question mark.The questions were collected, listed, and analyzed according to Bloom's Taxonomy: low order thinking skills: knowledge, comprehension, and application, and high order thinking skills: analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. The researcher then calculated the percentage and frequencies in which each level of cognition appeared for each separate unit and for all six units combined. The results indicated that the research tools used by the two analysts were valid and reliable. The results showed that 244 questions emphasized levels of cognition representing lower order thinking skills, while only 137 questions emphasized the three higher order thinking skills. The questions in the Horizons textbook place a great deal of emphasis upon comprehension, which is one of the lower order thinking skills. Additional studies are recommended in the area of content analysis of English instruction textbooks intended for various age levels in the Arab Sector. Such studies would shed light upon the role of textbooks in developing cognitive skills among Arab students.

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.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.205
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.301 · 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