MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206470513 · doi:10.5539/elt.v14n11p38

Google Classroom: Understanding EFL Students’ Attitudes towards Its Use as an Online Learning Platform

2021· article· en· W3206470513 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jitlada Moonma

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology-Enhanced Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyBlended learningClass (philosophy)Mathematics educationDescriptive statisticsLikert scaleVirtual learning environmentSocial distanceTeaching methodOnline learningEducational technologyMedical educationPedagogyMultimediaCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The closure of educational institutions across Thailand, as well as the maintenance of social distancing as a preventive and precautionary step against COVID-19, has thrown a wrench in the traditional method of teaching, which has given way to online learning. As a result, most online learning is managed through a learning management system, the most popular of which is Google Classroom. The purpose of this study was to find out how students felt about using levels as a virtual learning tool. One hundred and eleven second-year Thai EFL students from 7 majors who are taking English for Work participated in this study. They were mostly female (79.28%) and between 19 and 23 years old. They had attended online learning on Google Classroom. To obtain participants’ feedback, a Google Form questionnaire and a semi-structured interview were used. Means and Standard deviation were used as descriptive statistics. According to the results of the study, students indicated positive attitudes towards using Google Classroom in the aspect of ease of use (Mean = 4.41), usefulness (Mean = 4.12), and intention to use (Mean = 4.02). The results showed Google Classroom was well perceived by students. They perceived Google Classroom to be useful in submitting assignments and reminding class announcements. The results help teachers to consider arranging activities such as live online tutoring and discussion using Google Classroom to enhance students’ learning engagement or using blended learning (integrating online learning mode with face-to-face classroom).

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations22
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicTechnology-Enhanced Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207