The Impact of Vocabulary Size on the Receptive Skills of Saudi EFL Learners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aimed to investigate the impact of vocabulary size on Saudi EFL learners’ reading and listening skills. Thirty-eight undergraduate Saudi EFL learners participated in the study. The study tools consisted of vocabulary size test (VST) developed by Nation and Beglar (2007). The test was developed to provide a reliable, accurate, and comprehensive measure of a learner’s vocabulary size from the 1st 1000 to the 14th 1000-word family of English word-level tests. A paid reading and listening comprehension tests were used. Both tests were obtained from ETS, TOEFL official application. The results revealed that the vocabulary size of the Saudi EFL learners in the tertiary stage was 2790 words. Furthermore, the study found a positive relationship between the scores of the vocabulary test levels and the score of the reading and listening test. This indicates that a higher level of performance in the vocabulary test may lead to a higher level of performance in the reading and listening test, and these relationships were statistically significant at the level of 0.01. Because of this, it was recommended that teachers and learners use different approaches and styles for teaching and learning vocabulary.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".