Do Saudi Learners of English Recognize the Benefits of Consciousness-raising Tasks and Communicative Tasks?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined perceptions of students of the benefits of consciousness-raising tasks (CRT) and communicative tasks (CT) when compared with actual learning outcomes in a Saudi secondary school context. Qualitative data were collected from 60 Saudi speaking learners of English, at various proficiency levels, who had engaged in a sequence of collaborative speaking and writing tasks. The results showed the value of the TBL approach which was not in question but makes a significant contribution regarding the importance of the role of interaction in mixed ability groups. The findings indicate that there was a variation in outcomes particularly in terms of how the students perceived the benefits and contribution of the intervention type to their learning. In addition, there was a further impact from the sociolinguistic context of the interaction, which indicates the role of group dynamics and individual variations of Saudi learners. This implies that fluency and accuracy during sociolinguistic interaction is influenced by a wide range of features than cannot be assessed through traditional fluency measures alone. The findings therefore lend support for a TBL approach to maintain the development of fluency, accuracy, and learning.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".