The Struggling English Language Learners: Case Studies of English Language Learning Difficulties in EFL Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The term ‘struggling language learner’ is one that is usually ascribed to students who are trying, without much success to master the English language in an academic setting. As a case study, this study was carried out to gain insights into the ‘struggles’ of the struggling English as a foreign language (EFL) learners. Ten students were selected from those with the 20th least percentile in their English language courses. Observation of and discussion with these categories of learners revealed that many language learners had a point at which they began to take learning English language more seriously. In such positive or negative situations, their language learning journey improved therefrom. The findings showed that 80% of the participants believed that their English language proficiency was ‘very good’, while 20% of these participants believed that their English language proficiency was ‘average’. Also, the findings indicated that there was a statistically significant association (i.e., p < .05) between English language proficiency of the learners and the following observable attributes: willingness to learn for educational purposes; willingness to learn for career development; and students’ continuation without losing focus. The study proposes a fresh evaluation of the problems faced by EFL struggling learners by bringing to light a multifaceted, meaningful consideration of their learning attitudes from socio-psychological point of view, offering a comprehensive account of these learners and their learning difficulties as well as their attitudes and outlook while taking lessons as freshmen at the university.  
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 | 0.003 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".