MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914626085 · doi:10.5430/elr.v8n1p1

Teaching ESL through SMS: Prospects and Problems in Nigeria Idegbekwe, Destiny

2019· article· en· W2914626085 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Destiny Idegbekwe

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Linguistics Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Communication and Language
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDestiny (ISS module)Class (philosophy)Mobile phonePhoneNigeriansComputer scienceGrammarMathematics educationWorld Wide WebMultimediaPsychologyArtificial intelligenceEngineeringLinguisticsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a growing call for English as a second language teachers to explore different learning environments and teaching options to spice up the traditional ‘boring’ English language classes. The onus has been on language teachers to discover these innovative platforms and implement same in their classes. It is against this background that the present study presents the prospects and problems of using the SMS on mobile phones for teaching the English language in Nigeria knowing fully well that at least 15.5 million Nigerians of different ages own at least one mobile phone. The study reveals that most English language teachers do not recognise the cheap, exciting and handy nature of the SMS learning environment. The study also discovers that amongst all the network providers in the country, only MTN provides an SMS based ESL class that is mainly focused on grammar tips. The study examines some problems associated with the SMS learning environment; chief amongst them being the restricted text typing environment of SMS and the inability to take pictures for illustrations. However, the study recommends that despite the short comings, the SMS platform still provides an efficient and cheap learning environment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Linguistics ResearchSame topicDigital Communication and LanguageFrench-language works237,207