A Closer Look at Extensive Reading in Omani Public Schools: Current Practices and Teachers’ Perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The present study aims at identifying the current practices regarding the implementation of extensive reading in Omani public schools. The study employed a content analysis sheet to analyze the extensive reading work of 300 students. Semi-structured interviews were also held with 15 teachers and 5 regional supervisors from Al-Dakhilyia Governorate. Results of the study revealed that the frequency of reading amongst students is very low as 53% of the students read only once a semester and they often read the same type of genre. The results also showed that most of the English language teachers chose the same reading materials for their students regardless of the students’ interests or proficiency level. To show evidence of reading, students often wrote responses to questions in their notebooks. As for assessment, teachers did not assess students based on the frequency of reading or the difficulty level of the questions chosen. Teachers responded to students’ work by giving them a general mark rather than providing descriptive comments or giving recommendations on what to read next. Drawing upon the findings, recommendations to bring about better practices regarding extensive reading are provided.</p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".