Difficulties Facing English Teachers in Teaching Literary Texts at Higher Secondary Level in Bangladesh
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
The present Study examines the difficulties facing English teachers in teaching literary texts in English for Today (11-12) textbook which has been prescribed by the NCTB (National Curriculum Textbook Board) of Bangladesh from the academic session 2015-2016. Literature has always been an integral part of teaching foreign languages. In the era of CA (Communicative Approach), the aim of reading literature has been changed. From this view point, in July 2015, the NCTB has published a new version of English textbook for classes XI-XII, and included some literary texts in this book. The emphasis of these literary texts is not just on content but on the exploitation of the texts to trigger a variety of language activities. Based on a semi-structured interview with six HSC (Higher Secondary) level English teachers from four colleges of Dhaka city, this study particularly focuses on the newly included literary texts to critically evaluate the effectiveness of the materials; and identifies the difficulties that the teachers may encounter. Finally, some recommendations are drawn by means of valuable opinions of the participants.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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