The Effect of Teachers’ Self-reflection on EFL Learners’ Writing Achievement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The concept of teachers’ reflection refers to the extent to which EFL teachers contemplate and reflect on their teaching experience in the classroom in order to improve their teaching skills. This study sought to explore the effect of EFL teacher’s reflection on their learners’ writing achievement. Participants of the study included 100 EFL teachers teaching in Mashhad language institutes and their 1000 EFL learners. Reflective teaching instrument designed by Akbari and Behzadpour (2007) was administered to the teachers of the study. Also, their EFL learners’ Grade Point Averages (GPAs) of their writing scores were calculated. The results of the statistical analysis revealed that teacher’s reflection significantly affects EFL learners’ writing achievement. This paper concludes with some implications for teaching and directions for further research. Key words: Teacher; Self-reflection; Learner; Writing achievement Resume Le concept de la reflexion des enseignants se refere a la mesure dans laquelle les enseignants de l'APL contempler et reflechir sur leur experience d'enseignement en classe en vue d'ameliorer leurs competences pedagogiques. Cette etude visait a explorer l'effet de la reflexion EFL enseignant sur la reussite d'ecriture de leurs apprenants. Les participants de l'etude comprennent 100 enseignants EFL l'enseignement a Mashhad instituts de langue. Instrument pedagogique reflechissant concu par Akbari et Behzadpour (2007) a ete administre aux participants de l'etude. Les resultats de l'analyse statistique revele que la reflexion de l'enseignant affecte significativement atteinte ecrit apprenants EFL. Mots-cles: Enseignant; Auto-reflexion; L'apprenant; La realisation d'ecriture
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".