MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922896726 · doi:10.5539/elt.v12n4p179

Challenges of Teaching English Communication to Arabic Students

2019· article· en· W2922896726 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ehsan Mohammed Abdelgadir

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPronunciationPsychologyMathematics educationTest (biology)Sample (material)ArabicPedagogyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study carries out to investigate and identify the communication problems that affecting the Teaching / Learning process of ELT. It aims to help teachers and learners to know the cause of these problems and to use and practice (IPA) in English pronunciation. It also sheds light on the most common mistakes of English sounds in relation to their spellings. That the teacher’s knowledge of these errors makes him /her, able to avoid them. The researcher investigates the topic title: Challenges of teaching communication to Arab students. As a type of problems affecting the Teaching /Learning process of ELT. She follows an experimental design method to achieve this purpose. The subjects for the study were undergraduate students from University of Majmaah (Hotat Sudair College of Science and Humanities for girls). With the sample of two groups of fifty students of the same sex, standard, number, and degree of education. A case study in Hotat Sudair College for girls, to collect data from the subjects by observation through an oral test and statistical analysis. The study arrives at the following results: Only 13% of students care for segmental phonemes. Only 21% of students care for the correct pronunciation of words. Few learners use dictionaries to check English words’ sound in their daily presentations. On the other hand, care for transcriptions of sounds when speaking. Many students lack the basics that are supposed to be learned for acceptable pronunciation then mispronounce words. Then the researcher suggests some steps. She also finds new ideas for further investigations to improve the teaching/learning process and to achieve the aims of English communication.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207