Evaluating the Performance of Iraqi EFL College Students in Using Frequency Adverbs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frequency adverb is used to express approximately how many times a customary or habitual action or condition is repeated. It is one of the essential constructions in English grammar and a problematic area for the Iraqi EFL university learners. The study aims at investigating the performance of Iraqi EFL university students in using frequency adverbs by form and function and finding out the area of difficulty in this regard and suggesting remedial work for the alleviation of these difficulties. It is hypothesized that Iraqi EFL learners encounter difficulties in using adverbs of frequency. The study begins with the theoretical aspect encompassing definitions, types, and functions of frequency adverbs in English. Then, the practical aspect represented in a diagnostic test applied to a random sample of (50) students taken from the fourth level in the Department of English ,College of Education for human Sciences, University of Babylon. The findings of the test show that Iraqi EFL university students face difficulty in using frequency adverbs which, in turn, verifies the hypothesis of the study. In the light of the results of the test, some conclusions are drawn and a number of suggestions and remedial work are presented so that the learners can overcome the difficulty they encounter in using adverbs of frequency in English.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".