MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2781834924 · doi:10.5539/elt.v11n2p31

Flipping EFL University Classes with Blackboard System

2018· article· en· W2781834924 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Teaching Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyBlackboard (design pattern)Reading (process)PronunciationVocabularyContext (archaeology)Mathematics educationClass (philosophy)Flipped classroomBlended learningVocabulary developmentBlackboard systemMedical educationEducational technologyTeaching methodComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims at investigating students’ perceptions of flipping EFL classes with the blackboard system. A course was designed to give students an opportunity to experience flipped learning context in developing their reading skills. 49-second year, English department students participated in the project during a complete academic semester consisting of 15 weeks at the university of Al-Jouf, KSA. A detailed questionnaire was prepared and used to enquire students’ perceptions. Results of the study revealed that the majority of the participants were willing to use the flipped learning model with blackboard system. The participants provided mixed reasons for this willingness including getting marks, better learning, better communication with the instructor, and having fun. The results also indicated that the majority of participants perceived flipped learning with the blackboard system as a beneficial learning context. The most perceived benefits included improved pronunciation of new vocabulary, facilitating the acquisition of new vocabulary, preparing students for class work, increasing students’ time practicing reading at home, reading silently more often, better communication with the instructor and submitting homework easily and quickly. The study also revealed that participants faced some problems when using blackboard in the flipped learning model. Most of these problems were technical and could be overcome with proper training on the use of the system itself. The study recommends the integration of flipped learning in EFL classes. The study also suggests further investigation of the topic with different courses especially theoretical courses taught to university students in English departments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.293 · 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