Impact of Self-Correction on Extrovert and Introvert Students in EFL Writing Progress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate the impact of self-correction method as an alternative to the traditional teacher-correction method, on the one side, and to evaluate the impact of personality traits of Extroversion/Introversion, on the other side, on the writing progress of the pre-intermediate learners three null-hypotheses were proposed. In spite of students absolutely different personalities some teachers probably expect all the students to react to their incompetent feedback in an indistinguishable way. To put it in other words, these teachers pay no attention to the fact that each student is completely a different human being with his/her exclusive personality. These instructors pursue the traditional correction method and correct every error and even do not agonize to present work for different correction methods let alone thinking of making learners engage in their own learning. Therefore, 120 pre-intermediate Iranian female EFL students were selected through employing of Nelson English Language Test (NELT) and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ). They were assigned to four different groups-two groups include extroverts and two groups include introverts. Subsequently, they were given five expository topics to write about in a five-week period. While two groups, one extroverted and one introverted enjoyed self-correction, the teacher corrected the writings of the other two groups. The obtained results showed that personality type had no significant effect on learners' progress in writing. Nevertheless, self-correction method showed to be significantly effective at 0.5.
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) | 0.000 | 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".