Language Competence of HSSC Level Students in Pakistan: Developing Writing Proficiency through Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Writing is a means of communication and part of everybody’s education. Writing as a medium of language has its special features. This study brings to light the fact that teaching English through literature does not render any substantive and positive pay off in developing and honing the ESL/EFL learners’ writing skill. In the Pakistani context, literature seems to be inadequate and improper language teaching tool at HSSC level. To achieve the set objectives of this study, the researcher went for the quantitative research methodology. So, a questionnaire comprising of four categories i.e., grammar, vocabulary, sentence structure and creative writing was designed to collect data from 600 subjects (male/female) of intermediate level. The researcher also conducted an achievement test so that a correlation might be drawn between their attitude towards “developing writing skill through literature” and the score of their achievement test. This study has also strived to categorize the subjects in accordance with their proficiency level and computed a pie chart to illustrate their proficiency level. The collected data were analyzed through software package (SPSS XX). The findings of this study explicitly reveal that the EFL learners remain unable to develop both the language skills (particularly writing skill) and language areas when they are taught English through literature. This study recommends that the teaching of English should be application oriented and task-based strategies and activities should be resorted to by the EL educators.
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 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".