The Effect of Using Blogs to Enhance the Writing Skill of English Language Learners at a Saudi University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the use of web blogs as a supplementary tool for teaching English. It focuses on studying the effectiveness of using blog exchanges for enhancing the Saudi female university students’ English writing, especially the vocabulary usage. The participants of the current study were thirty-seven Saudi female preparatory year students from the English Language Institute (ELI) at King Abdulaziz University (KAU). Their ages ranged between 18 to 20 years of age. All participants were studying level 103 of the Oxford Headway Plus curriculum, at the third quarter of the academic year 2015-2016. The study hypothesized that there is a positive impact of using web blogs as a supplementary tool in improving the students’ writing skill, especially the use of vocabulary. This research reports on an experimental design study using a quantitative approach. The study also used blog entries and pre/post-tests as primary data collection methods. The pre-test and post-test consisted of 50 vocabulary scale test items. They were taken to measure the differences in participants’ writing performance after 7 weeks of intervention. A paired-sample t-test was utilized for statistical analysis to determine if there were any improvements in the students’ writing performance. The findings indicated an improvement in the students’ writing performance after using the blog entries. In addition, the research experiment contributed to the extension of their vocabulary knowledge.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".