Saudi University Undergraduates’ Beliefs about Language Learning along Gender Lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing mass of research has reported that each human being is different like a signature and particular characteristics based on their specific personalities have a strong effect on their language learning possibilities. Research posits that identification of EFL learners’ beliefs about language learning positively affects language learning process as it helps the teachers to address to their students’ learning effectively and also bears positive overbearing in case they bear some less positive beliefs. The study in hand is an attempt to investigate the beliefs of Saudi undergraduates along gender lines by using Horwitz’s (1987) BALLI. The comparative analyses generated by Independent-sample T-test reveal that male participants have assigned comparatively higher values to the majority of the questionnaire items as compared to their female counterparts. The participants of this survey have exhibited the greatest gender-based differences in their beliefs about “motivation and expectations”. Beliefs about “learning and communication strategies” and “the nature of language learning” have shown medium gender-based differences whereas male and female participants have seen eye to eye to each other in their perceived beliefs related to “foreign language aptitude” and difficulty of language learning. The findings of this empirical study have several pedagogical implications to revisit and modify teaching/learning practices of English language in Saudi Arabia in particular and Arab world in general. The findings will help English language teachers teaching in the KSA to understand the gender-based dimensionality of the language learning beliefs which will help them align their teaching methods to their learners’ beliefs; thus, maximizing the possibilities of much sought after goal of effective and efficient ELT in the KSA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".