MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2407781940 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v6n3p170

Students’ Perception on Social Media in Writing Class at STKIP Muhammadiyah Rappang, Indonesia

2016· article· en· W2407781940 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Geminastiti Sakkir, Qashas Rahman, Kisman Salija

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Methods and Media Use
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorthern Illinois University
KeywordsLikert scaleSocial mediaPsychologyClass (philosophy)PerceptionMathematics educationThe InternetComputer scienceDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Almost all students use social media, but few lecturers use it in their teaching process. This study examines students’ perceptions of the use of social media in the process of teaching English in STKIP Rappang Muhammadiyah, South Sulawesi, Indonesia. This study was conducted using a mixed method, including quantitative and qualitative data. Data were collected using a questionnaire that collected background information of participants, a four-point Likert scale to gauge the students’ perceived use of social media in class, and open-ended questions to gather more data rich in the beliefs, attitudes, wishes and concerns of students regarding the use of social media in the writing classroom. Findings from this study indicate that the majority of students showed a positive attitude toward and a willingness to use social media in the writing classroom. However, factors such as large classes, lack of training on the use of the Internet, and the lack of facilities could be possible barriers to the use of social media in the classroom.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Citations50
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicEducational Methods and Media UseFrench-language works237,207