MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410012580 · doi:10.4018/ijicte.374198

Applying University Competence Assessment Network Common Competency and EMI Pedagogy

2025· article· en· W4410012580 on OpenAlexaff
Hsing-Yu Hou, Pei-Jung Wu, Chih-Teng Chen, Li-Wen Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSecond Language Learning and Teaching
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)EMIPsychologyPedagogyMathematics educationComputer scienceKnowledge managementElectromagnetic interferenceTelecommunicationsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study created an all-English learning environment for teachers and students by integrating the theoretical framework of the University Competence Assessment Network common competency with the pedagogical method of English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI). The study targeted approximately 45 students, ranging from sophomore to senior, taking general education big data application courses. The study used a questionnaire with a satisfaction scale that combined the school's teaching evaluation items with four EMI skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) to assess whether innovative teaching strategies satisfied the students. The results showed that all competencies except interpersonal interaction significantly improved, especially problem solving ability. The teaching environment created by the study employed Tableau software, which makes it easier to create clear and information-rich graphic designs and visual presentations. The all-English teaching method improved students' English listening and other skills. These results suggest that in the future, big data courses using EMI should incorporate more elements of oral expression and technical English writing.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Information and Communication Technology EducationSame topicSecond Language Learning and TeachingFrench-language works237,207