Explicit Versus Implicit Modes of EFL Reading Literacy Instruction: Using Phonological Awareness With Adult Arab Learners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a strong belief among language teachers that intensive exposure to language alone can lead to acquisition. The present study is a qualitative- quantitative research design that used a quasi-experimental design to compare between the effectiveness of intensive exposure to language versus phonological awareness explicit instruction on adult Arab EFL learners’ EFL reading literacy in a Saudi university context. The study is also concerned with Saudi adult learners’ attitudes towards phonological awareness instruction. Participants (N=89) were all male students enrolled in an intensive EFL undergraduate program, where they were required to pass an intensive EFL course. Sample were randomly divided into a treatment group (N=47), who received phonological awareness treatment, and a control group (N=42) who were exposed to language intensively. Posttest findings confirmed the significant effect of phonological awareness instruction on the sample’s EFL literacy. Moreover, positive attitudes towards the program were detected in the interviews held at the end of treatment. Therefore, the study recommended introducing phonological awareness instruction to develop Arab learners’ EFL literacy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".