MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7131937574

The perspectives of student and teachers on speaking EFL classrooms

2003· dissertation· en· W7131937574 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cansu Selçuk

Bibliographic record

VenueBursa Uludag University - AVESIS · 2003
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrammarQuarter (Canadian coin)Focus (optics)Natural (archaeology)Focus group
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the beliefs of teachers and students about speaking skill in EFL classes. The focus of the study was on the possible problems in speaking and how to deal with them, 100 students and 50 English language teachers at ten different high schools in Bursa, Turkey, participated in this study as subjects. They were given questionnaires and interviews were conducted with 20 students and 10 teachers. The data were gathered during the spring quarter of the 2002-03 academic year. The results revealed that both students and teachers found speaking, as the most important skill although the most frequent skill was grammar in language classes. Speaking was also found be to be the most difficult skill for the students. The findings divulged that there have been various problems related to speaking classes such as anxiety, lack of audiovisual materials, natural input, the effect of mother tongue, the size and the arrangement of the class. Since the findings in this study are limited to ten specific teaching situations in ten different high schools, it may not be completely true to generalize the results of this research. However, it may give a general idea about the subjects' beliefs and needs in speaking.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBursa Uludag University - AVESISSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207