MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995554625 · doi:10.5539/elt.v13n1p63

Analysis of Phonetic and Phonological Constraints of Saudi EFL Learners

2019· article· en· W2995554625 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Atalah Mohammad Ali AlRubaat, Hammad Ali Alshammari

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPronunciationPsychologyConsonant clusterSyllabic versePhoneticsConsonantLinguisticsPhonologyPhonological ruleMathematics educationVowel

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores the pronunciation difficulties experienced by Saudi EFL learners at Jouf University (JU) in the north of Saudi Arabia. To achieve this purpose, two main instruments were implemented: an experiment of pronunciation sensitivity response and two interview formats. The sample of this study was selected randomly and consisted of (n=20) students studying English major in their sixth level at JU, and (n=10) English language instructors from the same institution. A mixed-method approach was employed to find out the phonetic and phonological difficulties that participants encountered during the implementation of the experiment of pronunciation sensitivity response, and to interpret participant's responses to the interview formats. The findings revealed that EFL learners experienced six phonetic and phonological problematic patterns related to mispronunciation of: initial consonant cluster, final consonant cluster, multi-syllabic words, unfamiliar sounds, vowels, and voiced or voiceless phonemes. It was also found that EFL learners and instructors had different views regarding these phonetic and phonological issues. The limited time for practice, the lack of authentic materials and tasks, and the need for immersion classes, and effective instruction and learning were all found to be responsible about the phonetic and phonological problems EFL learners encountered and at the same time they were found to be the motives for overcoming these issues. It is believed that the implications and recommendations included in this study would improve the performance of Saudi EFL speaking abilities once they are incorporated effectively in their English learning settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations23
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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