A Comparative Study of Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions About English Textbooks at Intermediate Level and Their Role in Promoting Students’ Proficiency in English
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main aim of the study was to compare students’ and teachers’ perceptions about English Textbooks of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Textbook Board for Intermediate Level, their contents and effects on students’ proficiency in English. The main focus of this study was to find out that as to what extents these textbooks cater to the language needs of the 11th and 12th grade students. Objectives of the study were (a) to analyze the perceptions of students and teachers about the English Textbooks of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Textbook Board for class XI and XII. (b) to find out as to what extents these books are helpful in promoting students’ proficiency in English language. (c) to propose recommendations for further improvement in the existing English textbooks and teaching methods of teachers. The population of the study consisted of all the Intermediate level students and English Subject Specialists/Professors in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Data were collected from 1975 students and 108 English language teachers through pre-tested questionnaires one each for students and teachers in seven districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. To analyze the difference between students’ and teachers’ perceptions about the English textbooks and their effects on students’ proficiency in English, independent samples t-test was applied. The results of the study showed significant differences in students’ and teachers’ perceptions about the textbooks and their role in affecting students’ proficiency in English.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".