MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2465309480 · doi:10.5539/elt.v9n8p231

The Problems of Applying Student Centered Syllabus of English in Vocational High Schools in Kendal Regency

2016· article· en· W2465309480 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdurrachman Faridi, Seful Bahri, Sita Nurmasitah

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology-Enhanced Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSyllabusVocational educationMathematics educationMeaning (existential)Plan (archaeology)Process (computing)Lesson planPedagogyPsychologyMedical educationComputer scienceMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was descriptive qualitative study aimed to investigate the problems of applying student centered syllabus in vocational high schools in Kendal regency, Central Java, Indonesia. The subjects of the study were twenty English teacher in vocational high schools in Kendal. The data were collected through observations, questionnaires, and interviews. The collected data further were analyzed using inductive analysis in which the researchers looked for the pattern of the data and the meaning of the data. Based on the data, there are three points concluded. The first was the English teaching and learning process in vocational high schools in Kendal had applied the student-centered syllabus. The second, in designing the students-centered syllabus the teachers found difficulties in having a model of the student-centered syllabus as a guideline in adapting and designing their own syllabus, describing the learning indicators, and formulating learning activities alligned with the student-centered learning. The third, the teachers faced difficulties in terms of encouraging their students to participate actively during the teaching and learning, and requiring a lot of time in implementing the student-centered syllabus. Thus, even though the teachers had already applied the student-centered syllabus in their teaching, they still found difficulties in implementing it. In conclusion, they need a model of student-centered syllabus for being a guideline in designing their syllabus and workshops to train them the ways to implement the student-centered syllabus successfully in their teaching.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicTechnology-Enhanced Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207