MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409824679 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v15n6p47

Lecturers’ Perspectives on Fostering Future Skills among Omani EFL Learners

2025· article· en· W4409824679 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mashael Awadh Al-Saiari, Anfal. A Mohammed. Al-Saiari

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSecond Language Learning and Teaching
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationPsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developing future skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving, collaboration, and digital literacy is essential for Omani EFL (English as a Foreign Language) students to meet contemporary educational and workforce demands. This qualitative study explored the perspectives of 18 lecturers from the English Language Unit at the University of Technology and Applied Sciences (UTAS) in Salalah, Oman, focusing on their roles in fostering these skills among EFL students. Additionally, the study identified the challenges lecturers encounter and the strategies they employ to overcome these obstacles. Through thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews, the findings indicated that lecturers significantly contribute to skill development by motivating students, updating teaching methodologies, and integrating modern technologies into their instruction. Nonetheless, lecturers face considerable challenges, including students’ limited English proficiency, time constraints within the curriculum, and a lack of student motivation. To address these issues, the study suggested strategies such as enhancing student motivation, increasing student participation in the learning process, and utilizing innovative teaching methods with new technologies. Implementing these strategies is recommended to effectively develop future skills among Omani EFL students.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.226 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicSecond Language Learning and TeachingFrench-language works237,207