MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405338207 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v15n2p250

Smartphone Apps -based Teaching Method to Develop Oral English Communication Skills at the Tertiary Level in an EFL Context

2024· article· en· W4405338207 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Prodhan Mahbub Ibna Seraj, Blanka Klímová

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Learning in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniverzita Hradec Králové
KeywordsClass (philosophy)Context (archaeology)English as a foreign languageIntervention (counseling)Tertiary levelPsychologyVariety (cybernetics)Mathematics educationComputer scienceMedical educationPedagogyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smartphones are the most used hand-held devices by people globally, whereas large class size is a common scenario in many EFL (English as a Foreign Language) contexts like Bangladesh. Besides, EFL learners get scarce opportunities to practice oral skills inside and outside the class to develop oral English communication skills (OECSs). Thus, this study investigates learners' experiences after the intervention of 9 weeks with a smartphone apps-based teaching method (SBTM) employing WhatsApp, call, and voice recorders in an EFL classroom at the tertiary level for managing large-size class for developing learners' OECSs in Bangladesh. For this purpose, a qualitative research design using interviews, reflective journals, and classroom observation was used to elicit learners' experiences and practices for soliciting a model of a smartphone apps-based teaching method (SBTM). The findings showed that learners had positive experiences, e.g., ubiquitous and flexible processes, opportunities for individual and partner practice, recordings facilitated oral practice, and inside and outside classroom oral practice for managing large-size classes for developing OECSs in an EFL context. On the other hand, the negative experiences that learners reported were that this method was challenging for teachers, e.g., for assessment, and the classroom became noisy. The findings of this study will leave implications for teachers, learners, app developers, policymakers, and researchers for practising, developing a new app, and adopting a policy for implementing technology inside the 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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.313
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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 venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicMobile Learning in EducationFrench-language works237,207