Perceptions of Students and Teachers about Students’ Proficiency in English Language at Higher Secondary Level in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This cross-sectional quantitative research was conducted to compare the average perceptions of students and teachers regarding students’ English language proficiency at the higher secondary level in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. The participants were 1975 students and 108 teachers belonging to one each district of the seven divisions in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Data were collected through pre-tested questionnaire i.e., one each for students and teachers. To analyze the significance difference between the average perceptions of students and teachers about higher secondary students’ English language proficiency; independent samples t-test was applied. The findings of the study revealed significant difference in teachers’ and students’ perceptions regarding students’ partial command over English language; use of English in and beyond classroom; expressing views fluently in English; students’ listening, speaking and reading skills; while no significant difference was seen regarding students’ full command over English language and their writing skill.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".