An Investigation of Verb-Forms Errors in the Spoken English of English-Majors and Non-English Majors at Emirates Canadian University College/ U.A.E.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed at identifying the strategies used by University students in learning English as a second language and their weaknesses in the grammatical and the lexical use of the English verb-forms. A total number of (8) university students were interviewed personally. Interviews were taped and each student’s speech was transcribed in order to be analyzed. The grammatical and the lexical errors were categorized and put to further analysis and investigation which explained the reasons and strategies behind their occurrences. The findings indicated that: - the learners’ errors were developmental and they benefited from instructions, most of the frequent errors were due to interference of the first language and the majority of errors were interlanguages errors, simplification and overgeneralization proved to be the most two widely used strategies in learning a second language and the learners’ motivation to communicate may exceed their motivation to produce grammatically correct sentences. A major conclusion of this study is the need of the English-major students for a remedial course in which they may have the opportunity to practice the basic structures of the English Language. Finally, based on the results of this study some pedagogical implications for English teachers and university instructors, curriculum designers and policy makers were highlighted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".