MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400510887 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v14n5p553

Adapting Multisensory Techniques for Dyslexic Learners in English Language Learning: A Case Study Approach

2024· article· en· W4400510887 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohamad Ahmad Saleem Khasawneh

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalysis of covarianceCompetence (human resources)Computer scienceMathematics educationPearson product-moment correlation coefficientRegression analysisIntervention (counseling)PsychologyMedical educationMedicineMachine learningStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research investigated the effects of using multimodal teaching methods on the acquisition of English language skills in dyslexic students residing in the Asir area of Saudi Arabia. A quantitative study methodology was used to evaluate the language competency of 30 dyslexic learners before and after the application of the strategies. The learning outcomes were assessed by a comprehensive study that included paired t-tests, Pearson's correlation, multiple regression analysis, and ANCOVA. The findings demonstrated a substantial enhancement in students' performance after the intervention. Moreover, it was observed that the frequency of using the strategies directly correlated with the speed of development. The findings of the multiple regression analysis showed that the frequency of use was the most important predictor of the learning outcomes. Finally, the ANCOVA analysis revealed that different strategies are efficacious when considering students' beginning competence levels. Teachers are advised to include these tactics in their teaching methods and get individualized training on the topic. Ultimately, this research enhances the area of special education by providing substantiated proof that the use of multimodal instruction may provide positive outcomes when educating dyslexic adolescents.

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 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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207