STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION ON ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION IN ICP PROGRAM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims at investigating 1) the extent to which the students are satisfied with the ICP program they attend, 2) the perception of the students towards the courses and materials offered in the ICP program they attend and 3) the perception of the students towards the impact of the ICP program they attend might have on their language learning and future. This study is a survey research employing a survey method. The subjects of this research include 66 students taken from 6 study. The instrument used is a questionnaire consisting of 3 sub-scales, namely Satisfaction, Courses and Materials, and Language Learning and Future Each sub- scale contains 10 items with the total number of items is 30. The data collected was analyzed quantitatively with the assistance of SPSS version 25.0. The findings of this research reveal that 1) the majority of the students participating in this research had a high level of satisfaction in relation to the ICP program they attended, 2) most students perceived the courses and materials they encountered in the ICP program to be good and 3) the majority of the students perceived the ICP program to be influential to their language learning and 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".