Exploring Language Teachers’ Perceptions of Cyclical Presentation of Materials in an EFL Context: A Grounded Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous studies have tested and verified the potential of cyclical presentation of materials in developing proficiency and achievement in various contexts. None of them, however, have explored language teachers’ perceptions of cyclical presentation of materials. Since teachers’ perceptions may catalyze or nullify the effect of this approach, this study aims at exploring experienced language teachers’ perceptions through the reformulated grounded theory (Stauss & Corbin, 1990). Using non-probability sampling procedures, fifteen experienced teachers, both male and female, were selected from the population of language teaches teaching in junior high schools of Shahrood, a major city in Semnan province, Iran. Iterative data collection and analysis and the constant comparative techniques yielded “Merits of Cyclical Presentation” and “Suggestions for Practice” as the two main categories each subsuming some propositions. Among other things, the emerged propositions revealed that cyclical presentation: helps students internalize materials; reduces students’ level of stress and tension; serves a remedial function; and increases students’ motivation. Since the syllabus imposed by central agencies is linear in nature, participants suggested down-to-earth techniques to modify the syllabus and pave the way for cyclical presentation of materials where possible. The findings have clear implications for language teachers, syllabus designers and language 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".