An investigation into diglossia, literacy, and tertiary-level EFL classes in the Arabian Gulf States /
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates whether the remedial tertiary-level EFL classes in the Arabian Gulf States optimize the process of acquiring English for the majority of the students, namely the graduates of government high schools. I have endeavoured to uncover, by reference to my three years as an EFL teacher in the Gulf and the pertinent literature, why so much time and effort invested by myself and my students resulted in such a disproportionate lack of progress in reading and writing. I show how three major factors (diglossia, a linguistic trichotomy, and low literacy levels) conspire to impede students from learning to read and write in English through second language methodology and compare this situation to the one in Quebec. I conclude with two suggestions to make tertiary-level EFL classes more efficient and effective: the use of more familiar methodology and the teaching of reading and writing through a literacy framework. I also propose some longer-term solutions to deal with the linguistic trichotomy, a problem the Gulf Arabian States may wish to address if they intend to pursue the goal of providing a world-class education to their children.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".