MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558885199 · doi:10.5539/ells.v6n4p25

The Value of Songs and Rhymes in Teaching English to Young Learners in Saudi Arabia

2016· article· en· W2558885199 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Manahel Abudolmohsen Al-Afar

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language and Literature Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Acquisition and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumPsychologyMathematics educationValue (mathematics)Teaching englishPedagogyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study aimed to show the impact of using songs and rhymes in teaching English to young female learners in Saudi Arabia. It involved 20 Saudi teachers who were randomly selected from public and private schools in Riyadh city. The age of the female students ranged from 6 to 10 years. Forty parents volunteered to participate, Parents were asked to answer an online survey comprising ten different questions. Interview questionnaire and online survey were the tools used for data collection. About 9 of all teachers don’t use songs and rhymes activities in teaching English. 15 of teachers out of 20 said that it is not a mandatory part of the curriculum. 13 of the teachers believe that it is very important and 2 teachers believed in using songs and rhymes to facilitate remembering. 16 of teachers out of 20 noticed that their students are actually using the songs or their vocabularies outside the classroom and 17 of all teachers stated that songs and rhymes helped their young learners’ English language development. 82.50% of parents in Saudi Arabia support teaching English to their children, 47.50% of parents stated that their child is using English only in the classroom. Only 7.50% of the parents were not aware of this classroom activity while 92.50% of them are aware. 2.50% of parents expressed their disagreement. The study found out that songs and rhymes are rarely used in teaching English to young learners in the Saudi Arabia and curriculum was not rich enough with activities like songs and rhymes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language and Literature StudiesSame topicLanguage Acquisition and EducationFrench-language works237,207