MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075460284 · doi:10.5539/ies.v4n1p242

An Analysis of Learning Barriers: The Saudi Arabian Context

2011· article· en· W2075460284 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Intakhab Alam Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPreparednessContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)Teaching methodMathematics educationAffect (linguistics)PedagogyProfessional developmentPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Learning and teaching are quite interrelated. Teaching can't take place unless the students learn. Teaching is a bi-polar activity. Learning barriers or causes of learning difficulties are quite natural phenomenon in an educational setting. But, when it comes to exert a very adverse effect it becomes crucial. Thus, it is unavoidable to ignore those factors which adversely affect the entire learning process. It is found that the following barriers are some of those that are very influential: social, cultural, parental, attitudinal, motivational, psychological, personal and pedagogical factors that include teacher, action research, teaching strategies, teaching resource, administration etc. The present paper is going to focus on the following: motivation of the students, motivation of the teachers, dedication and commitment, teacher's role, teachers’ preparedness, teaching strategies, training and professional development etc. The case of Saudi Arabia is very important for many reasons. The government is spending a lot of money on education. But, the achievement of learning is not up to the mark. Therefore, it is important to study the effect of such factors on academic achievement. Keywords: Barriers, socio cultural factors, psychological factors, pedagogical factors, the teacher , motivation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.559
Threshold uncertainty score0.814

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 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

Citations47
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207