MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402270095 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v15n1p330

Investigating the Functions of Code-Switching among EFL Lecturers and Undergraduate Students in Saudi Arabia

2024· article· en· W4402270095 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Haneen Khaild Al-Marzouki, Wedad Mohammed Albeyali

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKing Saud University
KeywordsCode-switchingCode (set theory)Computer scienceMathematics educationProgramming languagePsychologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many researchers have noticed that instructors who teach English as a foreign language (EFL) in language-learning institutions worldwide frequently implement code-switching (CS). Through this study, we investigate the functions of CS, specifically topic-switching, affective, and repetitive functions, as a pedagogical tool in an English for Specific Purposes classroom. The study is based on the perceptions of lecturers and students from two higher education institutions, Digital Colleges and Yanbu Industrial College, in Saudi Arabia. A quantitative research design was employed, with data collected through a questionnaire. The study incorporated a sample of 24 female EFL lecturers and 193 Saudi female students. The results indicate that both groups acknowledge using CS for topic shifting, with students displaying slightly higher acceptance. Additionally, both lecturers and students recognize the affective aspects of code-switching, with the students exhibiting greater agreement. Furthermore, lecturers and students agree regarding clearly identifying all repetitive functions. The study highlights the potential of CS functions as an educational tool to enhance interaction between EFL lecturers and students, encouraging engagement, cooperation, and academic achievements. It also underscores the significance of determining appropriate functions for various circumstances and shows that although acceptance may differ, there is general agreement on the various purposes for which CS is utilized in the EFL context.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.357 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicMultilingual Education and PolicyFrench-language works237,207