Designing Morphosyntax Material for EFL Students: Indonesian Case
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
Students’ understanding about Morphosyntax is often low due to its complex processes. This study attempted to design a learning handout that would help students solve their writing problems particularly in Morphosyntax cases. This qualitative study was conducted at two Indonesian Universities, namely UNTAG Banyuwangi and IAIN Jember Indonesia. Six phases in Design Based Research (DBR) by Hoadley (2004) and four phases of DBR by Reeves (2012) were combined as the design of the research. Four classes with a total of 114 students participated and the lecturers of writing course and grammar course were involved. Following the mixed design of DBR by Hoadley and Reeves, this study produced a learning handout that, after tested at the second cycle, proved helpful to solve students’ Morphosyntax problems especially in Writing Class. The students facing writing problems decreased averagely 35-40% after they learnt writing using the produced learning handout. In this case, the needs to master more on Morphosyntax to support their English proficiency skills especially in writing has been solved.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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