EFL Students’ Coherence Skill in Writing: A Case Study of Third Year Students of Bachelors in English Language
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Writing is considered an essential learning tool for all content areas. However, to master and have excellent writing skills for EFL students of undergraduate programs is challenging. Cohesion and coherence are both crucial textual elements to master writing. The present study examined coherence in English essays written by 46 female Saudi EFL third year at Unaizah College of Sciences and Arts, Qassim University. Examination of essays by the subject group designed to answer the research question. 1.) To what extent are EFL students competent in achieving coherence in writing skills? Each student was asked to write two essays (a writing test that included two essay questions). The data were analyzed through SPSS. The study results demonstrated that learners are not competent in achieving coherence in their writing tasks. In light of these results, recommendations are presented. The results also recommend further studies to investigate coherence and action research to improve this crucial skill among undergraduate Saudi EFL learners.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".