Exploring the Practice of Action Research among English Language Teachers in Omani Public Schools and Factors Affecting its Implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study explored the extent to which action research is practiced by English language teachers and the factors that affect action research implementation in the Omani ELT context. Additionally, it sought to identify different solutions that could be implemented to strengthen action research practices from the point of view of English language teachers. Data was collected through a questionnaire that was distributed among 366 English language teachers, followed by semi-structured interviews with 8 English language teachers who were actively engaged in conducting action research. There was a low level of practice of action research among English language teachers in the Omani public schools. The study also showed that insufficient time, heavy workload, lack of colleagues’ assistance and support, and lack of motivation were the main factors that hindered action research practices in the Omani ELT context. Participants suggested that providing training, support and incentives as well as encouraging collaboration with experts and publications could strengthen the practice of action research in ELT.
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 | 0.122 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".