The Effect of Hierarchical Word Activities on Written Expression Skills and Writing Anxiety in Turkish Language Education for Foreign Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the study, the effect of hierarchical vocabulary activities prepared in accordance with Gass’s Second Language Acquisition Model developed by Ateş (2016) on students’ written expression skills and writing anxiety was investigated. While the determined target words were taught to the experimental group with hierarchical vocabulary activities, the supervised group was kept in a regular diary. The method of the study consists of an experimental design with pre-test-post-test-measurement and supervised group. Experimental and supervised groups consisted of foreign students studying at Inonu-TÖMER in the 2017-2018 academic year. An essay was written to the students as a pre-test and a post-test, and the Writing Anxiety Scale was applied. No significant difference was found between the experimental and supervised groups of the Written Expression Rubric, which is used to score the compositions, in the pre-test and post-tests. It was concluded that the privatized instruction applied to both groups was beneficial for students’ written expressions. There was a significant difference between the experimental and supervised groups in terms of Writing Anxiety Scale pre-test scores. It was determined that the writing anxiety of the experimental group was higher in the pre-test.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".