Research of Enhancing Business English Writing Skills Based on the Blended Learning Model in Vocational College
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
Business English writing is a compulsory skill to be mastered by Business English major students but there is little progress in acquiring writing skills due to unattractive and ineffective teaching methods. The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of using the blended learning mode of task collaborative learning in improving Business English writing skills of students in China. The sample of the study consisted of 80 second year Chinese Business English students from Guangdong Polytechnic Science and Technology; two business English lecturers also participated in this study. All the students were of the same age group with similar results in their first-year English Language examination. Both the Experimental Group and Control groups had 40 students each and they were chosen as intact-groups. The Experimental Group was taught using the blended learning mode of task collaborative learning and the Control Group was taught using the conventional method over a period of eight weeks. The quantitative data were analyzed using the SPSS Program for Windows Version 25, in which ANCOVA test were applied for the inferential statistics. The findings from the quantitative data analyses indicated that the Experimental Group outperformed the Control Group in their overall scores in writing, focusing on topic, supporting details, coherence and cohesion, grammar and vocabulary. Also, students improved their writing skills through collaborative leaning. As such, this study has crucial pedagogical implications as it suggests that the blended learning mode of task collaborative learning can be used as an alternative method in China to improve students’ Business English 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.
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 | 0.037 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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