English Grammar and Thai University Students: An Insurmountable Linguistic Battle?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed at investigating English grammar knowledge of a group of Thai university students. The three main research questions revolved around their knowledge of English grammar, the kinds of difficulties they had encountered in using the grammar as well as their perceptions of the roles of grammar in using English. The participants were administered two types of grammar test: one was the grammar production test (20 items), and the other was the grammar recognition test (40 items). The average scores of the tests were relatively low: 7.30/20 and 21.13/40, respectively. The interview results suggested that the participants viewed grammar as important in learning and using English effectively. They also reported that appropriate teaching of grammar was beneficial as long as the communicative use of the grammar was emphasized. Further, a thorough analysis of sentence structures, which was one of the foci of the lesson learned, helped them to gain a better understanding of English sentences, enabling them to read academic texts more effectively. In short, the participants believed that grammar was essential and was something that was not insurmountable albeit the low scores reported above.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".