Students’ Writing Difficulties in English for Business Classes in Dhofar University, Oman
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates students’ writing difficulties of English for business classes and the possible factors that might cause such difficulties. A corpus of forty essays of forty undergraduates was compiled. We adopted a textography approach to study writing practices. The results of the textual analysis informed an administration of questionnaire to both the students and four faculty members. The results of the corpus analysis indicate that students had a lot of errors in spelling, grammar, and many of them were unable to write thesis statement, as well as topic sentences. Some students also had problems in developing coherent essays. The contextual data suggests that about 90 per cent of the respondent did not know what thesis statement is. It also shows that the majority of students had problems in generating and organising ideas and nineteen out of twenty-one respondents also had a limited wide range of vocabulary. The course syllable did not allocate more than four hours for teaching essay writing throughout the semester. We strongly recommend more contact hours for teaching essay writing. Teachers could engage students in critical thinking activities, including how to generate and organise ideas. Teachers should be teaching more academic vocabulary to students.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".