MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213232877 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v12n1p12

The Impact of Information Technology on Developing Creative Writing Skills and Academic Self-Efficacy for Undergraduate Students

2021· article· en· W3213232877 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Turki Rabah Al Mukhallafi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology-Enhanced Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluencyPsychologyMathematics educationCreativityTest (biology)Scale (ratio)OriginalityFlexibility (engineering)Construct (python library)Social psychologyComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study aimed to construct a strategy based on information technology for teaching English (English Course 102), and assess its impact on developing creative writing skills and academic self-efficacy for university students. A test of creative writing skills (fluency, flexibility, and originality) was also prepared, including (9) graded open-ended essay questions in creative writing skills, also the preparation of the academic self-efficacy scale, including (25) items in the following dimensions: the student’s self-motivation to learn; the student’s confidence in the ability to achieve; perseverance and continuity in learning; self-regulation of learning and recall habits. The study based on the experimental method, involving two groups, the experimental and the control group (pre-post). The study sample consisted of (64) second-year university students studying the course (English 102), which aims to develop language proficiency in academic writing skills. The sample was divided into two groups: experimental (32) and control (32). Results indicated that: There are statistically significant differences at level (α ≤ 0.01) between the mean scores of the students from the experimental and control groups in the post application for testing creative writing skills and each skill separately in favor of the experimental group, there are statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the experimental group students in the pre and post applications for testing creative writing skills and each skill separately and also of the academic self-efficacy scale and each dimension separately in favor of the experimental group , there are statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the students from the experimental and control groups in the post application of the academic self-efficacy scale and each dimension separately in favor of the experimental group, and there is a positive correlation between scores of the experimental group in favor of the post application of the creative writing test and their scores on the academic self-efficacy scale.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.163
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score0.844

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.163
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.393 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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