International perspectives on teaching the four skills in ELT : listening, speaking, reading, writing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chapter 1. Teaching the four language skills: Themes and issues; Anne Burns and Joseph Siegel.- Part I. Listening -- Chapter 2. What teachers say about listening and its pedagogy: a comparison between two countries; Santos and Graham, United Kingdom and Brazil -- Chapter 3. L2 listening in China: An examination of current practice; Renandya and Hu, China -- Chapter 4. The development of a listening course for Japanese university students; McAuliffe and Brooks, Japan -- Chapter 5. Listening instruction for ESP: Exploring nursing education where English is a lingua franca; Tweedie and Johnson, Qatar.- Part II. Speaking -- Chapter 6. ‘I can talk about a lot of things in the other language but not in English’: Teaching speaking skills in Cameroon primary schools; Tante, Cameroon -- Chapter 7. Inquiry Dialogue: A genre for promoting teacher and student speaking in the classroom; Chappell, Australia -- Chapter 8. Teaching Dialogic Speaking Strategies in a Canadian EAP Program; Pang and Burri, Canada -- Chapter 9. Teaching Conversational English to Adult Learners via Skype: A Russian Perspective; Kozar. Part III. Reading -- Chapter 10. Supporting Elementary Students’ Reading through Authentic Literature for Children; Vrastilova, Czech Republic -- Chapter 11. Teaching Reading to Encourage Critical Thinking and Collaborative Work; Murtiningsih and Hapsari, Indonesia -- Chapter 12. Reading Communities: Developing Autonomy through Community Building in an ESL Academic Reading Course; West, United States -- Chapter 13. Reading as Social Practice for Adult Immigrants: Talk around Text; Roach, New Zealand.- Part IV. Writing -- Chapter 14. Promoting Descriptive Writing through Culturally Relevant Literature; Hayik, Israel -- Chapter 15—Using Corrective Feedback on Writing to Enhance Vietnamese learners’ autonomy; Pham and Iwashita, Vietnam -- Chapter 16. Promoting Self-Reflection in Writing: A Showcase Portfolio Approach; Lam, Hong Kong -- Chapter 17.‘Localizing’ second language writing pedagogy in a skills-integrated language program in Brazil; Villas Boas, Brazil.- Chapter 18. Future directions for the four skills; Joseph Siegel and Anne Burns.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".