A Proficiency-Based Comparative Investigation of Listening Comprehension Strategies Employed by Saudi EFL Learners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study in hand intends to investigate the comparative analyses of the perceptions of Saudi EFL learners with high grade point average (HGPA) and low-grade point average (LGPA) towards cognitive, metacognitive and socio-affective listening comprehension strategies employed by them to comprehend listening texts. A modified 5-point strongly agree to strongly disagree Likert-scale questionnaire has been administered to Saudi EFL learners with HGPA and LGPA to generate data for this empirical study. The reliability and validity of the questionnaire has been determined. The instrument was translated into Arabic which was administered to the cohort from both levels to identify their responses towards the various questionnaire items. Independent-samples T-test was run to determine descriptive statistics as well as to identify whether any statistically significant difference exist along GPA. The data generated through this comparative analysis were used to test three null hypotheses set for this study. The results have reported that by and large no significant differences exist in the perceptions of the HGPA and LGPA participants of this study and null hypotheses were accepted. It was found that Saudi EFL learners represented by the participants of this study resort to cognitive strategies the most followed by the metacognitive ones to comprehend listening texts. As far socio-affective strategies are concerned, the results indicate their least use by the participants of this study. The findings of this empirical study suggest that Saudi EFL learners like to exploit bottom-up strategies more than the top-down ones. Recommendations have been forwarded at the end based on the findings of this empirical study.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".