MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400014415 · doi:10.5539/jel.v13n5p59

Challenges to Effective English Teaching in Primary Schools in Buraydah, Saudi Arabia: Perspectives of English Teachers

2024· article· en· W4400014415 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fahad Alrashdi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArabic Language Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationPsychologyPedagogyTeaching methodSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite extensive efforts to improve the quality of English language teaching, Saudi students in the local primary schools have a poor level of proficiency in English. Hence, this study aims to examine the barriers to effective English teaching from the perspectives of teachers in the primary schools in Burydah primary schools in Saudi Arabia. 50 teachers in primary schools in Saudi Arabia were recruited through convenience sampling. The study recruited teachers from Buryadah, a city in Saudi Arabia. Self-reported questionnaires with close- and open-ended questions were used to collect rich data. Several teacher-related, student-related, classroom-related, and school-related challenges were reported. Teachers believed that the key barriers to effective English teaching in descending order were the limited ability to use technology, limited technical support to use technology, irrelevant curriculum, lack of training in immersive learning, lack of student motivation, cultural differences among students, overcrowded curriculum, malfunctioning air conditioners, limited engagement at the class, impaired communication skills, limited use of interactive teaching methods, limited teacher training, dull curriculum or unengaging content, limited students’ ability to use technology, large class size, and limited flexibility in adapting the curriculum to the interests and needs of students. There is a need for cooperation among teachers, school headmasters, students, policymakers, and parents to address these barriers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicArabic Language Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207