MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2728588274 · doi:10.5539/jel.v6n4p145

Learners’ Attitudes toward Foreign Language Practice on Social Network Sites

2017· article· en· W2728588274 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jhonny Saulo Villafuerte Holguín, Asier Romero Andonegi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital literacy in education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLikert scaleActive listeningReading (process)PsychologyFlexibility (engineering)Foreign languageReading comprehensionSample (material)English as a foreign languageScale (ratio)PedagogyMathematics educationLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work aims to study learners’ attitudes towards practicing English Language on Social Networks Sites (SNS). The sample involved 110 students from the University Laica Eloy Alfaro de Manabi in Ecuador, and the University of the Basque Country in Spain. The instrument applied was a Likert scale questionnaire designed Ad hoc by the researchers, to assess the dimensions: (i) Integration of SNS into learners’ academic everyday activities, and (ii) Learners’ attitudes towards English Language practices on SNS. All the data was analyzed using SPSS V24.00 of IBM. The findings showed corelationships between learners’ attitudes and the factors: learners’ sex, age, and country. The results also confirmed that both Spanish and Ecuadorian university students prefer YouTube, and Google+ for their easy access, and flexibility to strengthen listening, reading and comprehension skills in English. In addition, Facebook, and Whats App can be used to motivate reading, writing, and speaking practices in English.

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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Citations20
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicDigital literacy in educationFrench-language works237,207