MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2405902424 · doi:10.5539/ies.v9n6p168

Task Based Language Teaching: Development of CALL

2016· article· en· W2405902424 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Khoirul Anwar, Yudhi Arifani

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)Class (philosophy)Computer scienceVariety (cybernetics)Product (mathematics)Task analysisMultimediaMathematics educationPsychologyArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p class="apa">The dominant complexities of English teaching in Indonesia are about limited development of teaching methods and materials which still cannot optimally reflect students’ needs (in particular of how to acquire knowledge and select the most effective learning models). This research is to develop materials with complete task-based activities by using CALL at junior high school in Indonesia. In order to entirely develop comprehensive materials, the first step is to do need analysis especially identifying task based learning model which fulfils students’ expectation, creates and develops pre task and task cycle (consisting of task, planning, and reporting) into CALL integration of learning module. The results of the students’ needs show that they like to have appropriate materials for their level, related to real life, variety of media and sources of learning chiefly incorporated to computer which optimizes interactive, contextual, and authentic materials. Therefore, the design of its prototype consists of three main steps. First, pre-task activity, it is designed in observing and questioning stage which is done by providing English comics with thematic situations. Second, main task activities, it is designed in exploring and associating stage which are done by presenting real life situations by utilizing videos, songs, and stories which elaborate exercises, role play, and discussion sections. Finally, post task activity, it is designed in communicating stage and it is intended to provide follow-up activities in wider contexts. The evaluation of the final product is done by validating the materials by means of a group discussion with English teachers.</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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.302 · 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.

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

Citations34
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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