Perception and Interest of English Language Learners (ELL) toward Collaborative Teaching; Evaluation towards Group Activities
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study focuses on evaluating the perceptions of Saudi ELLs enrolled in secondary classes, with an emphasis on group activities. A total of 424 ELLs were enrolled in this study on the basis of purposive sampling technique from eight public schools in Riyadh city, Saudi Arabia during the time period of January 2020 to May 2020. A close-ended questionnaire comprising 23 items was distributed online to collect data regarding perceptions of participants towards collaborative teaching and group activities. Descriptive statistics, independent t-test and One-Way ANOVA were used as statistical tools to analyze the data through SPSS version 25.0. Collaborative teaching techniques and group activities were preferred by ELLs with respect to gender differences and grade-level differences, respectively. It was concluded that students studying in different classes preferred group activities in comparison with collaborative teaching techniques.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it