Multiple Responses Through Verbal Discourse in the Reading of Literary Texts
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The past decade has viewed the important role literature plays in enhancing the learning process among students in Malaysian English classrooms. However, most English teachers in particular are not prepared to teach literature due to the lack of training and exposure on the subject. This paper seeks to explore the ways teacher trainees from one teacher training institute attempt to provide multiple responses on two Malaysian short stories through verbal discourse. This qualitative study uses the transcripts from the audio recorded discussion among dyads to analyze the ways subjects respond to two short stories. Using a constant comparative method, recurring themes were lifted based on Newell’s (1996) typology of responses. The findings of this study revealed that the subjects used four different types of responses, namely associations, interpretation, personal response and evaluation. These responses describe the subjects’ maturity in relating their understanding of the literary texts besides the capability of making critical judgments and rationalization.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it