A Retrospective-Comparative Evaluation of Textbooks Developed by Native and Non-native English Speakers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the suitability of the textbooks World English 1, as a book written by native speakers of English, and ILI 1, as a book written by non native speakers of English for elementary level students based on two criteria (illustrations, and physical make-up) adopted from Doaud & CelceMurcia’s (1979) checklist in a comparative way. The study was conducted at Atlas Language Institute in Urmia and Iran language Institute (ILI) in Urmia. The participants of the study were 120 and 100 students (50 in each institute) and 20 teachers (10 in each institute). Then, the obtained data were analyzed by calculating the level of meaningfulness, mean score, and T value by using SPSS software. The results of the study revealed that illustrations and physical make-up which students rated them as having almost equal suitability were not rated as the same by teachers; since teachers, resorting their experiences and profession, believe that native written book is better than nonnative written one.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".