MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981603034 · doi:10.5539/elt.v12n11p42

The Effectiveness of a CLIL Basketball Lesson: A Case Study of Japanese Junior High School CLIL

2019· article· en· W2981603034 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yukiko Ito

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSecond Language Learning and Teaching
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsBasketballPsychologyClass (philosophy)Situational ethicsMathematics educationPedagogyTeaching methodLesson studyPhysical educationProfessional development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article outlines a junior high school physical education class which teaches basketball in English using the CLIL framework as a case study. The purpose of the article is to consider how and what students learned from the class through students’ class results, basketball skills test, post lesson questionnaire and pre and post lesson teacher interviews. It examines how the teacher’s attitude toward CLIL changes from pre and post lesson interviews. Through this CLIL class led not by English teachers but by a physical education teacher the qualities and abilities necessary for competent CLIL teaching are considered. Regarding students, this CLIL lesson was conducted for the acquisition of physical basketball skills, English expressions and situational English ability. It also aimed to teach 21st-century skills defined by global education. The lesson resulted in students being able to understand both the English target structures and the basketball terms and strategies taught. In addition, students not only learned the content of the lesson, but also co-operated well with the teacher and worked well in teams which made the lesson successful. Before the lesson, the teacher felt that the CLIL lesson would be difficult for the students. However, the lesson was well received and had a great effect on the students and the teacher herself gained confidence. The experience they gained will lead to skills that will help them succeed in a global society in the future.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicSecond Language Learning and TeachingFrench-language works237,207