Perceptions About Motivation Towards Teaching English Language Employing Madrasati Platform During the Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates motivation towards teaching English language using Madrasati platform. The research methodology was mixed methods research for this study. The review of the most recent studies on the topic were included. The quantitative data were collected through surveys during Spring 2022, and an instrument was administered to obtain data. In this study, 382 (236 male and 146 female) in-services English language teachers were selected at random as participants. The samples were the representation of both genders. They were also representatives of all teachers’ qualifications including diploma to PhD degrees. For the qualitative part of the study, ten participants were purposefully selected to obtain data. The source of qualitative data collection were interviews. The results of this mixed methods study displayed that the participants had positive perceptions in general of using Madrasati platform. Some motivational factors were found in this study e.g., flexibility, teaching with technology, using Madrasati. The participants found better attendance in their online courses. However, the participants indicated some challenges such as training to use technology, connectivity, and distraction.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.257 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".