MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3032901069 · doi:10.5539/elt.v13n6p162

Saudi EFL Teachers’ Interpretation toward Creativity

2020· article· en· W3032901069 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Norah Nasser Aldujayn, Alaa Mesfer Alsubhi

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCreativity in Education and Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityPsychologyCertaintyInterpretation (philosophy)Mathematics educationPedagogyForeign languageEnglish as a foreign languageSocial psychologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose, Methods, Results Creativity is an important skill that should be promoted throughout the educational system. However, teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL) in high schools in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) generally do not appear to use creative approaches for reasons that are not well understood. Understanding EFL teachers’ attitudes about creativity would provide valuable insights into their practices in the classroom and facilitate the planning and evaluation efforts to promote creativity in classrooms. Using a validated survey instrument adapted from Al-Qahtani (2016), the researcher collected attitudes toward creativity among 85 female Saudi EFL teachers. The study found that the participating teachers had positive attitudes toward creativity. However, they lacked certainty about the definition of creativity and were not confident in their application of creative methods. The implications of these findings in light of the research are discussed in greater detail.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicCreativity in Education and NeuroscienceFrench-language works237,207