Effectiveness of the ADDIE Model within an E-Learning Environment in Developing Creative Writing in EFL Students
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 present research aimed to examine the effectiveness of the ADDIE model as used in teaching online in the LMS of Blackboard® and its facilities such as discussion boards, forums and blogs for improving the creative writing skills of EFL college students. The researcher utilized a quasi-experimental method, involving a pretest, posttest and control group design. Sixty students were randomly selected from freshmen studying in the English department participated in the study and were assigned equally to the research groups. The experimental group was exposed to the e-learning environment, which sought to develop the students’ creative writing skills while the control group was exposed to the traditional teaching method. Using a creative writing checklist and a writing test designed to assess the specific features of creative writing (originality, accuracy, self-expression, fluency, flexibility and overall writing performance for assessing creative writing in the research participants, results of t-tests and eta square statistical tests demonstrated that there were statistically significant differences between the mean scores gained by the experimental group and those obtained by the control group writing performance post-testing to the good of the experimental group participants. Conclusions and pedagogical implications were forwarded at the end of the article.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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