Communicative Approach: An Alternative Method Used in Improving Students’ Academic Reading Achievement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Academic reading is a difficult subject to be mastered. It is needed because most of books or references are written in English. The emphasis is on academic reading which becomes a compulsory subject that must be taught and understood in Faculty of Letters UAD Yogyakarta. Communicative approach is used and applied as an alternative method in the process of teaching?learning that focuses on language as a medium of communication. Communication ability involves in understanding fully the vocabulary, grammar, comprehension, and all aspects of English skills such as reading, listening, speaking and writing. One main focus of the classroom action research that appears from communicative approach which is applied in the process of teaching?learning academic reading will be discussed. The objectives are (1) How is the application of communicative approach?, (2) How far is the influence of using communicative approach in teaching academic reading? It includes the study intensity of the students, the benefit and the weakness of using the approach. The results showed the application of communicative approach effectively improved the students’ ability in academic reading. It could be seen from the improvement of some aspects, (1) aspects of reading ability, (2) aspects of English: vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, communication, and ability of cooperation, colaboration, socialization, sharing ideas, opinion, and suggestion. The objective of teaching, the model of syllabus, the form of teaching?learning activity, and the kinds of learning material used by the teachers were consistent with those which were recommended by communicative approach.
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 | 0.007 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".