Collaborative Writing in Group Assignments in an EFL/ESL Classroom
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of collaborative writing (CW) is well attested in English Language Teaching (ELT). This study attempts to explore English as Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ and students’ views, perceptions and experiences with CW and to find ways to improve this type of writing practice. Quantitative and qualitative methodologies were used to collect the data. To address the issues in the study, a questionnaire was distributed to 64 EFL students at a public college in Oman and five teachers were interviewed. The findings show that the vast majority of teachers and students had positive views about CW, which concurs with the findings of previous research. Further, the study indicated that both students and teachers can play a significant role in improving CW practice by following certain strategies, such as those involving clarifying CW task learning outcomes, fair assessment, monitoring, solving CW group conflicts, CW group management and clear division of CW group work. Based on the teachers’ and students’ views, and the findings from the literature, some suggestions for improving CW are proposed which may help to enhance CW practice.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it