MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389048524 · doi:10.5539/elt.v16n12p1

Readability of Reading Texts for EFL Students at Al-Baha University

2023· article· en· W4389048524 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicText Readability and Simplification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReadabilityReading (process)Set (abstract data type)PsychologyMathematics educationIndex (typography)Computer scienceLinguisticsPedagogyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reading is an important skill for EFL university students, as it reinforces their critical and analytical thinking. EFL university students rely on reading texts to expand their knowledge of the outside world and enhance their memory functions, enabling them to use the target language more effectively. EFL instructors depend on the reading texts as the basis for curricular and extracurricular activities to enhance their learners' language skills, enabling them to use the language in everyday situations. Therefore, selecting suitable English textbooks with appropriate reading texts is crucial for students' achievement and progress. Research in the areas of readability of textbooks and reading texts is very important to assess the appropriateness of different texts for learners. Many readability studies have focused on examining the suitability of readability formulas for measuring the readability level of texts provided to learners. This study measured the readability level of the reading texts of Evolve 4 special edition (published by Cambridge University Press) offered to EFL university students using online digital software that utilizes a set of the most commonly used readability formulas, including the Flesch Reading Ease Formula, Gunning Fog index, and Coleman Liau index. This study also used a set of cloze tests administered to female EFL university students, designed by the researcher to measure the readability level of the reading texts and provide suggestions and recommendations for EFL instructors who teach the textbook at the university level. The findings of this study show that the readability level of the reading texts in the English book Evolve 4 special edition is fairly challenging for EFL university students, as measured by a set of readability instruments. Consequently, the study recommends that EFL instructors should utilize a diverse set of teaching strategies and cooperative work methods to help their students read and understand the reading texts in Evolve 4 special edition. Moreover, EFL instructors should take into account significant factors that can affect the readability of English reading texts, such as learners' interest, prior background, style of the text, and the content itself. These considerations should guide instructors in tailoring their approach to maximize student learning outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it