MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901328230 · doi:10.5539/elt.v11n12p58

Self-directed Learning via Contemplative Teaching to Promote Reading Comprehension Ability

2018· article· en· W2901328230 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fatemeh Giveh

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAdult and Continuing Education Topics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContemplationTransformative learningPsychologyReading comprehensionMathematics educationReading (process)PedagogyTeaching methodComprehensionLinguisticsTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study tried to investigate one of the options for improving self-directed learning in Iranian EFL learners, i.e., contemplative L2 instruction with a flavor of transformative instruction. Accordingly, it adopted a quasi-experimental design to investigate the influential effects that contemplative teaching would exert on Iranian EFL learners’ L2 self-directed learning and reading comprehension abilities. To this end, two groups of Iranian EFL learners were taught on the L2 through either contemplative teaching (Experimental Group) or a traditional method (Control Group). The results of the study indicated that contemplative teaching, accompanied with transformative instruction, would in fact have significant effects on Iranian EFL learners’ L2 autonomy, i.e., self-directed L2 learning, and L2 reading comprehension skills. In addition, the analysis of the qualitative indicated that the participants in the Experimental Group held positive attitudes towards contemplative and transformative L2 instruction and believed these instructional strategies would create a supporting and viable classroom atmosphere. The findings of this study would have significant implications for both theory and practice on L2 contemplative teaching, self-directed learning, and reading comprehension.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicAdult and Continuing Education TopicsFrench-language works237,207