MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147009227 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v2n1p207

An SFL-oriented Framework for the Teaching of Reading in EFL Context

2012· article· en· W2147009227 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nader Assadi Aidinlou

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading comprehensionComparabilityGrammarSignificant differenceReading (process)Mathematics educationContext (archaeology)Computer scienceTest (biology)PsychologyComprehensionLinguisticsPedagogyMedicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to introduce a systematic framework for the interactive instruction of reading based on Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). To do so, 60 undergraduate TEFL students taking an advanced reading course were assigned to two equal groups. Both groups were pre-tested for their comparability, and then the experimental group was treated with SFL-oriented knowledge for 13 two-hour sessions with the control group just receiving the traditional grammar-oriented method of teaching reading. Following the treatment, a post-test was administered to both groups the results of which indicated that there was a significant difference at p < .05 in the performance of the two groups on reading comprehension. Detailed analyses revealed that the treated group had a better performance on understanding the lower-level intra-sentential relationships and higher-level contextual components involved in reading comprehension. It was concluded that the SFL-based teaching of reading comprehension had a great effect on the reading comprehension of Iranian TEFL 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.060
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.311 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207