MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903654922 · doi:10.5430/wje.v8n6p58

Exploring the Teaching of Communicative Grammar in EFL Classes in Benin to Promote Language Use in CBA Context

2018· article· en· W2903654922 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Estelle Bancolé-Minaflinou

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Education · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrammarCommunicative language teachingPsychologyClass (philosophy)Mathematics educationContext (archaeology)Communicative competenceTeaching methodLanguage acquisitionPedagogyComputer scienceLanguage educationLinguisticsArtificial intelligenceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper sets out to investigate how communicative grammar can effectively be used in EFL classes in Benin topromote real language practice. To collect data, instruments such as questionnaires, interview and class observationwere used. The sample of the study consists of twenty purposively chosen secondary EFL teachers (ten of them teachtraditional grammar and ten, communicative grammar) and twenty six students ranging from beginners to advancedlevel. The data were analyzed using the SPSS tools, the goal of which is to verify the effectiveness of this approachover the traditional one.The findings of the investigation have revealed the following: (i) not many teachers teach communicative grammarin Benin and those who claim they teach it still have a hazy idea of what it is supposed to be; (ii) communicativegrammar teaching is what is needed to make EFL learning a rewarding experience for students’ effective use of thelanguage; (iii) both approaches are not mutually exclusive for they can become perfect complements.The study concluded with some strategies for implementation illustrated by some suggested activities that candevelop students’ communicative strategies and interactional skills.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.202 · 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.

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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of EducationSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207