MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321372932 · doi:10.5539/elt.v9n5p1

Optimizing EFL Learners’ Sensitizing Reading Skill: Development of Local Content-Based Textbook

2016· article· en· W2321372932 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEnglish Language Learning and Teaching
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)DictionReading comprehensionPsychologyContext (archaeology)Mathematics educationLinguisticsCLARITYGrammarPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The development of local wisdom based sensitizing reading material is aimed at penetrating one of the imperishable gaps between authentic and non-authentic reading materials dispute in an EFL teaching context. Promoting EFL learners’ needs for the first semester students of English department at university level, who rarely or even never have a direct contact with native speakers, with meaningful and contextual reading textbook in an EFL setting is worth contributing. This study utilizes research and development paradigm within four stages, namely planning, development, try-out, and textbook revision. The textbook development resulted fifteen chapters containing fifteen local reading passages from various famous local tourism objects, famous public figures, cultures, traditional cuisines, and music. Each chapter encompasses eight exercises generated from the reading text itself with approximately from 400 to 600 words. Those exercises cover picture reading preview and identification, lexical sets, collocation and formation, literal, interpretive, and critical comprehension, and networking activity through interview and writing activity beyond the text. The average result of textbook validation from reading experts, English practitioners, and learners revealed the average score was 3.76 within the interval 1 to 4 and it was sorted out into ‘good’ category. Further, revisions toward grammatical error, diction, instruction clarity and picture lay out were also addressed and refined. As the textbook effectiveness toward the improvement of learners’ reading comprehension is not measured yet, so an experimental study is welcome for further research to address the issue of textbook effectiveness.</p>

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.224 · 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