The Experiences of Students in English Language Teaching on Learning “German as a Foreign Language”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to illustrate the experiences of students who have taken the optional course “German as a Foreign Language” using the textbook “studio d A1” (Funk et al., 2010) at the Department for English Language Teaching at Bursa Uludağ University, and also their reasons for learning a second foreign language. To identify the thoughts and opinions of the students using the textbook, a questionnaire containing ten questions was used. In addition, four questions regarding demographic information were posed to 32 students at the department. The purpose of the study was to analyze the suitability of maintaining the set textbook for the optional course “German as a Foreign Language”. The results indicate that, in this optional course, there is a need to use textbooks that are designed according to the combination German after English or German with English. The students have also been given the opportunity to express their opinions concerning whether the hours offered in the curriculum of Bursa Uludağ University were sufficient for them to learn a language at a level that would facilitate their learning of yet another foreign language. The analysis of these data shows that students wished to increase the weekly quota of hours of this course.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".