CEFR Based Learning Approach: Using Literature to Enhance EFL Students’ Reading Skills and Critical Thinking Skills
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 purposes of this research were to: 1) study whether the use of literature activities improved EFL students’ reading skills and critical thinking skills according to CEFR at C1 level; 2) investigate students’ critical thinking skills in studying a literature course; and 3) examine students’ attitudes towards the use of literature activities in developing reading skills and critical thinking skills. The sample consisted of 47 second-year English major students who were enrolled in the Introduction to Literature Course in the academic year 2020 at a public university in the northern part of Thailand. The instruments included five lesson plans using literature activities to develop reading skills and critical thinking skills, a reading test, a reflective writing task, and a list of semi-structured interview questions. T-test, mean, and standard deviation calculations including content analysis were used for data analysis. This study found that the EFL students’ reading skills and critical thinking skills improved significantly following participation in literature activities based on Reader-Response theory. The EFL students demonstrated average level critical thinking skills and they held positive attitudes towards the use of literature activities for developing reading skills and critical thinking 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.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it