Trait Based Assessment on Teaching Writing Skill for EFL Learners
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
This study was conducted in order to investigate the effectiveness of trait based assessment on teaching writing skill for EFL learners. Designed as pre-experimental study with one group pretest and posttest design, it examined 20 students of the second semester of English Department of Hamzanwadi University in the academic year 2016/ 2017 as the samples. Purposive sampling technique was used in determining the samples. Writing test and analytical scoring rubric were the instruments used to collect the data. Then the data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics and paired sample t-test to test the hypothesis. The result of descriptive statistics analysis revealed that trait based assessment is effective on teaching writing skill for EFL learners since the mean score of posttest 60 was higher than mean score of pretest 28.20. While for hypothesis testing by using paired sample t-test at significance (2-tailed) value level was .000, it was lower than .05. Therefore, it means that the hypothesis of this study was accepted. In other word, trait based assessment was significantly effective in improving students’ writing skill.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 it