MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771300121 · doi:10.5539/elt.v11n1p136

The Degree of Practicing Democracy in the EFL Classroom According to Perceptions of Instructors

2017· article· en· W2771300121 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammad Akram Alzu’bi

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAl-Balqa' Applied University
KeywordsDemocracyDemocratizationPsychologyPerceptionMathematics educationSample (material)Process (computing)Scale (ratio)Data collectionPedagogySociologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceComputer sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the aims at Albalqa Applied University is to prepare the student to contribute positively in society so the main important goal of the comprehensive reform of the education system in Jordan is to contribute to the democratic development of the country. The study has been investigated to find out if the English instructors adopt the democracy techniques in their classes. This paper presents a classroom management model to be used in teaching English by having English teachers use the democratic process to create their English learning environments. The researcher prepared a “Democracy Scale” about the extent of applying democratization in EFL environment at universities as data collection tool. The sample was randomly chosen from Al-Balqa’ Applied University. The study suggested several implications like using technology inside EFL environment and conducting a similar study to know students perspectives about practicing democracy in the EFL environment.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207