Teaching “Cross-cultural Communication” through Content Based Instruction: Curriculum Design and Learning Outcome from EFL Learners’ Perspectives
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to investigate EFL learners’ perspectives for the effectiveness of content-based instruction in a cross-cultural communication course. The main objectives of this study are three-folds: (1) to examine students’ perspectives regarding the effectiveness of content learning; (2) to examine students’ perspectives regarding the effectiveness of language learning; and (3) to examine students’ perspectives regarding the effectiveness of cooperative learning and development of critical thinking. Sixty non-English major EFL students from a university in Northern Taiwan participated in this study. A variety of tasks such as readings of a variety of authentic texts, viewing movie and video clips, discussing in groups, and accomplishing a group project were employed to have students actively explore the subject content and concurrently work on their language skills. Students were also required to evaluate their peers’ final group project with provided evaluation criteria. Questionnaires and semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore what students were able to learn from this course and the challenges they have encountered. The results from students’ feedback revealed their positive gains in the areas of content knowledge as well as the enhanced language skills. Some perceived difficulties among students such as inability to fully comprehend the input or to produce effective output were reported and the pedagogical solutions were suggested. Other benefits such as constructive cooperative learning, enhanced critical thinking, and boosted confidence in the target language use were also reported by the learners.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it