The Impact of Glossed Texts on Reading Comprehension among Tertiary Saudi Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore the existing effect of gloss conditions on reading comprehension and vocabulary understanding of learners in the context of English as a foreign language. The study composed of 72 male students aged between 19 and 21 years selected from Qassim University in Saudi Arabia. The participants were divided into four groups, namely; L1 Arabic gloss, L2 English gloss, a combination of L1 and L2, and the last group with no gloss. Results and findings of the study revealed a significant difference regarding the comprehension of the texts among the experimental groups when correlated with the control group. Additionally, there was no significant change noted regarding performance among the experimental groups. Another finding indicated that the learners had a preference of L1 and L2 gloss over L1 gloss and L2 gloss types, with 93.03% of them preferring to read glossed texts. Overall, these findings suggest that the gloss and no conditions were significantly distinct. This research results will be beneficial for future studies that are interested in developing reading comprehension of EFL learners.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".