MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132865323

“I don’t like working in a group because criticism is not constructive”: An Exploratory Study of International Female Students’ Perceptions and Experiences of EAP/ESL Collaborative Projects in Canadian Post-secondary Institutions

2022· dissertation· W7132865323 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ghazala Zahid

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2022
Typedissertation
Language
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus groupPerceptionExploratory researchCriticismQualitative researchGroup workWork (physics)Group (periodic table)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With their steady increase in numbers, international female students remain a significant group in the Canadian post-secondary educational landscape. This qualitative study explored the perceptions and lived experiences of 14 international female students from 10 countries with small group work in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) or English as a Second Language (ESL) programs in several Canadian post-secondary institutions. The data were collected using in-depth individual interviews and a focus group via Zoom and analyzed thematically. Six main themes were identified: (1) the nature of interactions with male group mates; (2) the need for cultural adjustments; (3) the influence of group work on language learning; (4) the psychological effects of group work; (5) notions of group work in Canadian post-secondary classrooms; and (6) personal attitudes towards group work. The findings have implications for different stakeholders in the Canadian higher education context.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0250.015
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.314 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning→French-language works237,207→