Treating of Content-Based Instruction to Teach Writing Viewed from EFL Learners’ Creativity
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 objectives of the research are to examine: (1) whether Content-Based Instruction is more effective than Problem-based learning to teach writing to the EFL Learners; (2) whether the EFL Learners having high creativity have better writing than those having low creativity; and (3) whether there is an interaction between teaching methods and EFL Learners’ creativity in teaching writing.The research method of this research was quasi-experimental research. The techniques of collecting data were creativity test and writing test given to the both classes. The data were analyzed by using Multifactor Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test of 2 × 2 and Tukey test.The result of data analysis showed that: (1) Content-Based Instruction was more effective than Problem-based learning to teach writing (2) the EFL Learners having high creativity have better writing than the EFL Learners having low creativity and (3) there was an interaction between teaching methods and EFL Learners’ creativity in teaching writing. Based on the finding, it can be concluded that Content-Based Instruction was an effective method to teach writing.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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