Probing the Determinant Factors Affecting Students’ English Speaking Skills
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to probe the determinant factors affecting students' English speaking skills at Rift Valley University, Ethiopia. For this study, a mixed research approach was employed. 180 students were chosen using simple random sampling techniques. A Likert-Scale questionnaire was used to collect data. The collected Data was analyzed using SPSS version 26. The study's results identified four major factors that affect students’ English speaking skills: student-related factors, teachers related factors, classroom-related factors, and course materials-related factors. The findings revealed that the factors related to students, teachers, classroom and course materials significantly affect students' English speaking skills. This study is significant for students, teachers and curriculum designers. Therefore, it is recommended that educators and language instructors pay attention to the identified factors to enhance learners’ speaking abilities. Future researchers may consider exploring the impact of technology and digital resources on improving students' speaking skills in higher education settings.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it