An Evaluation of the Secondary School Intensive Foreign Language Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to investigate English teachers’, students’ and parents’ opinions about the secondary schools’ intensive foreign language education program in Turkey focusing on four skills, content, learning objectives, teaching/learning process and assessment/evaluation. To this end, instruments consisting of three questionnaires and one academic test were developed by the researcher. These instruments were applied to 305 English teachers, 189 students and 288 parents. Cronbach alpha results were found above 0,80 for all the questionnaires indicating the high reliability of the data collection tools. Descriptive statistics (frequency and mean), Oneway ANOVA and post hoc tests were used to describe and compare the opinions between the groups. The results of this study show that in terms of four skills, teachers, as opposed to students and parents, think that reading and writing skills develop more than listening and speaking skills. Teachers also think that they can partially achieve learning objectives for speaking skills. Regarding the content, teachers state that the content is partially prepared with a focus on communication while students and parents have quite positive opinions. The students and parents expressed partially positive opinions about the intensive foreign language education encouraging hands-on activities during the lesson while teachers think otherwise. Briefly, parents and students have more positive opinions than teachers. Overall, the results of this study show the discrepancy between teachers, students and parents’ thoughts about intensive foreign language education, in which is worth investing.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".