Evaluation of English Textbook of Intermediate Class From Students’ Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Textbooks play significant role in teaching and learning continuum. Due to this reason, Curriculum wings and Directorate of staff development (Punjab) have had continuous check and monitoring in devising goals and standards in textbooks from grade 1 to grade 10. But at intermediate level specially in12th grade, the same text book i.e. Good-bye Mr. Chips is being taught more than 20 years. It is assumed that there lies a huge literacy and learning gap between the secondary level English textbooks and intermediate level English textbooks. The present study keeping in view the issues and gaps in mind was an attempt to investigate the importance of English textbooks being taught at intermediate level (Grade 12) in different schools and colleges in Punjab. Prospective study occupies descriptive type of research framework. The textbook of English being taught at intermediate level is evaluated according to specified models and strategies mentioned in previous research studies based upon textbook evaluation. Sample was determined through applying cluster random sampling technique. Questionnaire was designed, validated and administered after conducting pilot phase. The findings of the study reveal that the textbook being taught at intermediate level is not be up to snuff to convene the common objectives of the target language and is irreconcilable with the requirements of promoting confidence and ornamental language skills. Moreover, it is recommended that textbooks must be revised from time to time to obtain definite language learning objectives. The book being evaluated lacks innovation, students’ interest, relevant content and appropriate 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".