Investigating Difficulty Order of Certain English Grammar Features in an Iranian EFL Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The English grammar is usually taught to undergraduate EFL learners in Iran during the first academic year. It may be supposed that they have acquired a good mastery of the English grammar as they are on the verge of graduation. At the same time, it may be assumed that some English grammar features are more difficult/less difficult than others for the EFL learners to master. This study, therefore, attempts to find out which English grammar features are more difficult/less difficult than others for Iranian undergraduate EFL learners. 125 Iranian undergraduate senior EFL learners took part in this study and responded to the English grammar test. Moreover, some experienced English instructors were asked to rate the difficulty of the given English grammar features. The data were collected and analyzed which revealed that some English grammar features were more difficult and some were less difficult than others for the EFL learners. The obtained difficulty order determined by the EFL learners and the one obtained according to the instructors’ perceptions were compared. Some similarities/overlaps and differences were found to exist in the rank orders of the features for the two groups. The findings of the study may be beneficial to syllabus designers, material developers, instructors and EFL learners.</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 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 | 0.001 | 0.095 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".