MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172247371 · doi:10.5539/elt.v7n11p119

Tapping the Potential of Skill Integration as a Conduit for Communicative Language Teaching

2014· article· en· W2172247371 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shu‐hua Wu, Sulaiman Alrabah

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyFluencyActive listeningMathematics educationReading (process)GrammarSyllabusPedagogyLinguisticsCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this classroom-based study was to discover the kinds of skill integration tasks that were employed by English teachers in Kuwait and to measure their attitudes toward implementing the skill integration technique in their classrooms. Data collection involved recording 25 hours of classroom-based observations, conducting interviews with the same group of teachers, and distributing a survey to further explore the teachers’ attitudes toward the skill integration technique. Data analysis involved categorizing skill integration tasks, analyzing the interview data, and counting the means and standard deviations of the survey data. Findings indicated that the participating teachers performed a wide range of transactional and interactional tasks that involved the simultaneous integration of speaking, listening, reading, and writing in their classrooms. The findings also revealed that even though the skill integration technique was adopted by most of the English teachers, they were ambivalent toward its implementation in their classrooms. This was partly due to the negative washback effect of traditional English tests that measure students’ accurate application of grammar rules but not their fluency and ability to use the L2 as a tool for communication. Implications for L2 pedagogy were drawn regarding the need for teachers to expose students of all proficiency levels to both transactional and interactional tasks in the classroom. To counter the negative washback effect of conventional discrete-point tests, English teachers were encouraged to develop communicative tests that involve skill integration and emphasize the development of the four language skills in their daily classroom activities.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207