A Study on the Effect of Scaffolding through Joint Construction Tasks on the Writing Composition of EFL Learners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study is an attempt to investigate the effect of scaffolding writing proficiency through joint construction tasks on the writing composition of Iranian EFL learners and to investigate any significant difference in the writing proficiency of the girls and boys after receiving the instruction. To this end, sixty intermediate learners of English, majoring in Literature and Translation, studying at Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz participated in the research and then were randomly divided into two groups, the experimental and the comparison. During the course of this study, i.e. 10 sessions, the participants were assigned to write compositions of about 150 words on eight writing topics. To find out whether there is any significant difference in the writing proficiency of the learners who receive join construction instruction, two tests were used to compare the writing performances of the groups: a pretest prior and a posttest. Results of the Data analysis indicated that there is a significant difference in the writing proficiency of the learners who receive join construction instruction. The results also showed that, as far as the instruction on joint construction was concerned, females outperformed the males. Key words: Scaffolding; Joint Construction Task; Composition; Writing
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".