MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3174013088 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v11n2p13

Using Blended Approach for EFL Learning: A Step towards 21st Century Classrooms

2021· article· en· W3174013088 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammed Mahib ur Rahman

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlended learningGlobeMathematics educationContext (archaeology)Class (philosophy)English as a foreign languageLanguage acquisitionComputer sciencePsychologyEducational technologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing use of technology for the teaching-learning activity has seen a significant change in the learning approach across the globe including the teaching of English as a foreign/second language. In this context, the teacher makes use of online classes along with the formal or in class approach for EFL learning. Consequently, the blended learning approach has seen an influx of research and considered as a potential area of research for the teachers. As opposed to the sheer use of e-learning, blended learning promotes the use of different technological equipment for EFL instructions in addition to the traditional method or face to face approach. Therefore, several higher learning centers have already started using blended learning to teach EFL learners. However, this phenomenon is more prevalent in the developed nations as compared to the developing countries like Saudi Arabia. Therefore, the author aims to determine the attitudes and perceptions of EFL learners towards the use of blended learning, as an ultimate recipient and recommends it for further implementation based on the findings of this study. The questionnaire has randomly been administered among a total of 70 undergraduate EFL learners of Qassim University, Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire consists of 10 closed ended items. Based on the collected responses of EFL learners against each item a quantitative analysis has been done using SPSS 26. The results indicate that most EFL learners believe that it has a positive impact and make learning more interesting. Further, the study has been concluded with the recommendations and practical implication in EFL learning based on the obtained results.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English Language→Same topicOnline and Blended Learning→French-language works237,207→