MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379229010 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v13n6p203

English for Young Learning Method through Games and Songs for Elementary School

2023· article· en· W4379229010 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Like Raskova Octaberlina

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Methods and Media Use
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationClass (philosophy)VocabularyDocumentationNatural (archaeology)Data collectionQualitative propertyQualitative researchProcess (computing)PsychologyPedagogyComputer scienceLinguisticsArtificial intelligenceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to determine the role of music and games in elementary school children's learning. The method used in this research is a type of qualitative research. The data collection process was carried out using the Focus Group Discussion (FGD) model in natural settings (natural conditions), primary data sources, and more data collection techniques on observation, in-depth interviews (in-depth interviews), and documentation. The chosen research location is an elementary school in Tulungagung Regency. Teaching English to young learners for teachers is fun. Teachers are required to learn in an interesting and not monotonous manner. Young learners also have a good memory in responding to something. Young learners are active students, so playing is one of the things they enjoy doing. So, the teacher must have innovations to create a learning atmosphere that is not monotonous. One of the things that can be done is to do learning by applying games in class. Young learners in learning English need various interesting methods to be applied in class. One technique that can be used for young learners in learning English is song and games. The benefit for young learners learning English is that they can speak English in the future. The aim of young learners learning English is to master as many vocabulary words as possible. Therefore, they will not experience any difficulties using English in the future. That way, English can be used for their skills in the future.

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)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.323 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicEducational Methods and Media UseFrench-language works237,207