On the Effect of Cooperative Writing on Students’ Writing Ability, WTC, Self-efficacy, and Apprehension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Co-authoring is a type of cooperative writing which requires students to cooperate in order to write. The present study is carried out to see whether cooperative writing affects students’ levels of writing ability, writing apprehension, writing self-efficacy, and writing WTC. Two intact classes have participated in this study. A conventional group (n= 31), and a cooperative (n= 36) participated in the study. The students in the experimental group were writing essays in groups of four, helping each other during the process of writing; on the other hand, in the control group, the whole procedure was done individually. The analysis of the data revealed that the writing ability of the students in cooperative group improved significantly more than that of the students in the conventional group. The further analysis showed the superiority of cooperative writing classes in the affective domain. The results of the present study shed more light on the efficiency of cooperative writing in terms of both writing ability and affective factors. A set of pedagogical implications are also provided.
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 | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".