EFL Learnersâ Perceptions of Grammatical Difficulty in Relation to Second Language Proficiency, Performanc, and Knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated grammatical difficulty from the perspective of second language (L2) learners in relation to their overall L2 proficiency and L2 performance and knowledge. The design included the administration of a student questionnaire, an interview, a proficiency test, and oral production and metalinguistic tasks. The proficiency test and questionnaire were administered to 277 university-level Chinese EFL learners in Taiwan. The questionnaire explored learners’ perceptions of grammatical difficulty of 20 English grammar features. Thirty of the students who completed the questionnaire met with the researcher individually to complete a grammatical difficulty ranking activity, 2 grammar exercises and 2 stimulated recalls, all of which aimed to further explore why the learners considered the selected features to be more (or less) difficult for them to learn. The oral production tasks were administered to 27 of the students who completed the questionnaire. The metalinguistic task was administered to 185 of the students who participated in the questionnaire survey. \nThe questionnaire results indicate that, overall, the participants did not perceive the 20 target features to be difficult to learn. Notwithstanding, the ranking results of the questionnaire suggest that learners’ perceptions of grammatical difficulty are based on whether the rules to describe the formation of language features are easy or difficult to articulate. The qualitative results show that the learners’ perceptions of grammatical difficulty were influenced by several factors including their L2 knowledge, L2 grammar learning experience, and L1 knowledge, all of which were examined with reference to syntactic, semantic, and/or pragmatic levels. In terms of the relationship between learners’ perceptions of grammatical difficulty and their overall L2 proficiency, results show that learners’ perceptions of grammatical difficulty do not vary at the syntactic level, but that there is some variation at the pragmatic level. Regarding the relationship between learners’ perceptions of grammatical difficulty and their L2 knowledge, results suggest that learners’ perceptions of grammatical difficulty vary according to their implicit/explicit knowledge of the features in question; at the explicit knowledge level, the feature perceived to be less difficult to learn is used more accurately, while at the implicit knowledge level, this is not the case.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".