The Impact of Product and Process Approach on Iranian EFL Learners’ Writing Ability and Their Attitudes toward Writing Skill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the current study was twofold; its first aim was to determine the effect of using of two approaches namely; product and process on developing the fluency, accuracy, and using discourse markers (DMs) of EFL learners’ writing performance. Secondly, it attempted to investigate the effect of mentioned approaches on EFL learners’ attitude toward writing skill. The participants in this study were 60 Iranian learners who were divided into three groups; control and two experimental groups. The control group received no treatment and only received explicit recast feedback toward their writing performance. However, every experimental group received treatment through differential approaches. The findings of the study based on one-way ANOVA revealed that process approach significantly affected on EFL learners’ writing performance. Additionally, the results manifested the positive effect of process approach on EFL learners’ attitude toward writing skill. The current study suggested that in order to develop the EFL learners’ writing skill, the EFL instructors can insert the process based approach in syllabus design.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".