MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2211429096 · doi:10.5539/hes.v6n1p87

Teachers’ and Students’ Perceptions of Classroom Activities Commonly Used in English Speaking Classes

2015· article· en· W2211429096 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaoyu Huang, Xinyue Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionPsychologyBrainstormingMathematics educationPedagogyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Classroom activities, such as English dubs, role-play, brainstorming etc can be very useful for the teaching of oral English. In recent years, although considerable attention has been paid to the use of classroom activities in English speaking classes, the perceptions of teachers and students about such activities have been ignored. Therefore, this study aims to investigate students’ and teachers’ perceptions of the use of classroom activities in English speaking classes. Classroom observations were carried out as a preparatory work for a questionnaire survey which was conducted to examine the attitudes of English-major students and teachers towards 21 classroom activities. Data were analyzed and the results of the research showed that there were both similarities and differences between students’ and teachers’ perceptions about these activities and that the perceptions of freshmen and sophomores were not completely matched. The findings of this research can help teachers take students’ perceptions into consideration while designing classroom activities for English speaking classes in the future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations27
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207