MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392784480 · doi:10.5539/elt.v17n3p1

Personalising Learning in Maltese - Exploring International Students’ Expectations Towards Ġabra Online Lexicon

2024· article· en· W4392784480 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jacqueline Żammit, Patrick Camilleri

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWikis in Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalteseLexiconPsychologyMathematics educationLinguisticsCognitive psychologyNatural language processingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid incorporation of digital technologies in formal education has led to significant transformations, albeit not always yielding the anticipated productivity. This study investigates the attitudinal changes towards an online Maltese lexicon, Ġabra, among 46 adult learners of Maltese as a foreign language. By utilising a composite analytical model, the study is grounded in the theoretical frameworks of Technological Frames of Reference, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). These frameworks guided the tracking of the development of respondents’ attitudes over a five-month research period. The survey results gathered at the onset and conclusion of the study highlighted a perceptual discrepancy between the initial expectations towards an e-dictionary and the actual usage experience of the Ġabra platform. As the students gained more experience with the platform, their attitudes towards Ġabra underwent a shift. Despite some initial expectations not being fulfilled, the majority of students ultimately found Ġabra to be a beneficial tool for learning Maltese. The students’ feedback about the Ġabra online dictionary can potentially pave the way for a more personalised learning experience of the Maltese language.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.711

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicWikis in Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207