Interlanguage Performance of EFL College Students: Evidenced in the First Semester of the English Letters Major-Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In EFL teaching, it has been theorized that intelligibility can be achieved by relative closeness of oral performance to the standard of EFL proficiency. The current study sought to investigate the position of interlanguage performance of EFL college students in terms of intelligibility of the language product (Speaking). Ten students’ Mid Semester Tests of the Speaking Class were videotaped as the source of data in the study. They were in the First Semester of the English Department, majoring in English Letters. The oral performance of EFL college students as the research subjects were analyzed employing QDA Miner, a research software for text mining to position the students’ points of interlanguage approximation. As it was only a case study with a limited number of subjects, the findings may not represent EFL students in general. It was revealed that only minimum intelligibility had been achieved. The students produced ungrammatical utterances, mispronounced words, limited communication strategies, lack of sentence variations, and most surprisingly with only a narrow scope of vocabulary selection to express their unforgettable memories in monologues. The errors were attributed to the influence of the mother tongue (Indonesian or Javanese in particular) within the interlanguage boundary of English and Indonesian. Room for improvement is still ahead as they are heading for the next seven semesters in the English Department. The study, pedagogically, concludes that, in teaching EFL, considerably sufficient proportions of teaching pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary, should be given throughout the process of learning for the students to achieve the standard of EFL proficiency.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".