MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2985484056 · doi:10.5539/elt.v12n12p95

Co-Teaching in EFL Classroom: The Promising Model

2019· article· en· W2985484056 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCollaborative Teaching and Inclusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSyllabusClass (philosophy)Active listeningPsychologyMathematics educationTeaching methodPedagogyReading (process)Computer scienceLinguisticsCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research aimed to examine whether co-teaching in EFL classrooms could have positive impacts on students’ learning outcomes and their overall academic performance, including the improvement of the four language skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing). The experiment of the study was conducted throughout the summer course of 2018 for six weeks at the College of Basic Education with a class of 24 female students. The classes were held every day for one hour and twenty minutes. A simultaneous comparison between two classrooms was conducted in which one class was taught by a single instructor (the control group), and the other class was based on co-teaching (the experimental group). The two groups were taught by Khalifa AlKhalifa and Dalal Boland who acted as “one brain in two bodies” in their EFL classroom. Numerous sittings took place before each class to discuss how the lesson was to be divided between them and to reach an agreement on several matters, such as which instructor would deliver the lesson, which activities were to be solved, and how the second instructor would be beneficial in providing support and assistance to students throughout the entire class period. Moreover, both instructors established goals and objectives for every lesson and made sure that students meet those objectives by the end of every class period. Well-established plans and ideas on how to grasp those targets were agreed upon throughout the implementation of different materials to cover the content of the syllabus. After the summer semester came to an end and when the class average of both classes was compared, the results proved that the students who were in a co-taught classroom showed a significant improvement in their academic performance, whereas students who were taught solely by one instructor showed less improvement in their overall academic skills. This shows that well-planned co-teaching programs could lead to better student support within classroom settings, which consequently leads to improved EFL learning.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.311 · 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