An Evaluation of English Language Grammar for College Students 1&2: An EAP Coursebook Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to do a detailed evaluation of English Language Grammar for Iranian College students. In order to accomplish the purpose of the research, the researchers used two instruments: 1) The questionnaire developed by Daoud and Celce-Murcia 2) The researcher-made checklist based on Bloom's taxonomy of language learning. Regarding the questionnaire, twenty available EFL teachers evaluated the book in terms of five key aspects of subject matter, vocabulary and structure, exercises, illustrations, and physical make up. Concerning the checklist, the researcher meticulously evaluated the book in terms of three domains of cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. In order to analyze the data in both instruments, descriptive as well as inferential statistics such as Kruskall-Wallis and Pearson Rank Order Correlation tests were applied. The result of statistics for the questionnaire revealed that subject matter, vocabulary and structure, and physical make up of the book are emphasized and two aspects of exercises and illustrations are ignored. And there is only correlation between subject matter and physical make up. Data analysis for the checklist indicated that within cognitive domain, only first stages are emphasized and the last stages of synthesis and evaluation are neglected. In addition, cognitive domain is more privileged than affective and psychomotor domains. Finally, some pedagogical implications for both teachers and syllabus designers are provided.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.057 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".