MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206764797 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v11n6p14

Enhancing Young Learners’ Writing Skills Through the Application of Web 2.0 Tools and Educational Technology in Project-Based Teaching and Learning: An Action Research Study

2021· article· en· W3206764797 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Irene Manidaki, Makrina Zafiri

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology-Enhanced Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAction researchPunctuationSpellingVocabularyMathematics educationPsychologyComputer sciencePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research probed into the application of educational technology and Web 2.0 tools in Project-Based Learning (PBL) to 6th grade Greek Primary School learners who are learning English as a foreign language. More particularly, this research probed into the teaching of writing skills to the aforementioned students through Web 2.0 tools and Project-Based Learning. Action research was conducted in which sixteen learners who attend a Greek State Primary School participated; they were involved in a five-month differentiated instruction program using Google Docs and blogs. Pre-tests and post-tests were distributed to the learners to investigate their level of writing skills according to criteria related to the learners’ overall ability to complete the writing tasks and the quality of writing production, namely spelling and punctuation, vocabulary range, accuracy and appropriacy, and to evaluate their improvement respectively. Qualitative research was also conducted: pre- and post-semi-structured interviews investigated their attitudes concerning the effectiveness of PBL in combination with Google Docs and blogs in terms of collaboration and process writing. The researchers/teachers also kept a reflexive journal which concentrated on the use of Web 2.0 tools, the writing processes, and the collaboration which took place amongst and between the learners and their teachers (who were also the researchers). Findings revealed that integrating project-based learning with educational technology and Web 2.0 tools was an effective means of enhancing young learners’ writing skills.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.174
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.587
Threshold uncertainty score0.833

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.174
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.397 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicTechnology-Enhanced Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207