MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559279512 · doi:10.5539/ells.v6n4p62

The Awareness of Morphemic Knowledge for Iraqi High School Learners’ Vocabulary Acquisition in the EFL Context

2016· article· en· W2559279512 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohamad Subakir Mohd Yasin, Hussein Al-Suhail, Ahmed Mohammed

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language and Literature Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Methods and Media Use
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorphemeVocabularyContext (archaeology)PsychologyConstruct (python library)ComprehensionTest (biology)Significant differencePhenomenonReading (process)Mathematics educationReading comprehensionLinguisticsCognitive psychologyComputer scienceNatural language processingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study attempts to assess the awareness of morphemic knowledge among Iraqi high schoollearners in the domain of English Foreign Language (EFL) context. Two tests were employed in this study namely, “Morphological Relatedness Test (MRT)” and “Morphological Structure Test (MST)” adopted and adapted from Curinga (2014). These two tests are essential and crucial instruments employed to measure the students’ morphemic knowledge for this research. The students’ ability was measured by the two tests to reflect and manipulate morphologically complex derived words in English. Twenty Iraqi high schoolstudents were involved to achieve the purpose of the study. The study analysis disclosed that the participants accomplished poorly in both tests of MRT and MST. The findings also revealed that there was no significant difference between the students’ performance on MRT and MST. They were unable to reflect and manipulate efficiently. However, the students’ performance on reflective aspect was a little higher than manipulative aspect. It is true that Iraqi students are suffering from the phenomenon of the morphemic knowledge. They indeed need to be aware of the importance of the morphemic knowledge because this knowledge can drive to construct new words and deconstruct the complex words in addition to the reading comprehension.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language and Literature StudiesSame topicEducational Methods and Media UseFrench-language works237,207