Effects of Sentence Making, Composition Writing and Cloze Test Assignments on Vocabulary Learning of Pre-intermediate EFL Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the effects of three writing assignments (sentence making, composition writing and cloze test) on vocabulary learning and tried to compare the effectiveness of these assignments to see which one has the best effect. Accordingly, 102 homogeneous pre-intermediate EFL female learners, studying English at an institute in Shiraz, Iran, were randomly divided into three groups. At the beginning, an unannounced researcher-made pre-test including 60 multiple choice tests (60 vocabulary items, from all parts of speech) was administered which showed no learners knew all the items. Then during 6 sessions the 60 vocabulary items were taught (each session 10 items). Each session, in the first group the participants were asked to write a sentence for each of the 10 items. In the second group the participants were asked to write a composition using the 10 newly taught vocabulary, and in the third group the participants were asked to fill in the blanks of a cloze-test. After the 6th session a post-test which was the same as the pre-test was administered. To analyze the data obtained from the tests, two one-way ANOVAs and three paired t-tests were utilized. The results indicated that all three assignments were significantly effective to help learners learn new vocabulary items and that the learners were not significantly different from each other in the pre-test. Moreover, the group which was to write a composition did significantly better in the post test than the two other groups but the difference between the two other groups was not significant. An interview was done by the researcher after the treatment period. The interview results confirmed the beneficial effects of these assignments on learners' vocabulary learning.
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 | 0.014 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".