Roles of Linguistic Knowledge, Metacognitive Knowledge and Metacognitive Strategy Use in Speaking and Listening Proficiency of Iranian EFL Learners
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the influence of language knowledge, metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive strategy use on speaking and listening proficiency. Ninety six freshman and sophomore Iranian university students (male=6, female=90) were participated in the study. Two kinds of questionnaire and one language knowledge test were administered. Pearson product moment correlation was applied to find the relationship between the variables and speaking and listening proficiency. Multiple regressions were used to test the variance accounted for language knowledge, metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive strategy use in speaking and listening proficiency. The results demonstrated that all the variables correlated significantly with speaking and listening proficiency. All the variables uniquely contributed to speaking proficiency, however; in case of listening, just language knowledge and strategy use were predictors of listening proficiency. Other findings and pedagogical implication of the study are discussed.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it