Implementing Wiki as an Asynchronous Tool to Enhance the Grammatical and Lexical Accuracy of Saudi Secondary-School Learners’ EFL Writing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wikis have been increasingly integrated into English-writing teaching and have served as one of the Web’s most crucial social-networking tools, improving the writing of EFL learners worldwide. The purpose of this study has been to examine the positive effects of wiki-mediated collaborative writing and peer feedback on the grammatical and lexical accuracy of Saudi EFL learners’ writing. To this end, 26 female secondary-school learners participated in the study and were selected from a private school in Riyadh. They were randomly assigned to a control group (N=12) and an experimental group (N=14). Both groups were given an identical writing task. However, in the control group, members individually completed the task, which was then reviewed by the teacher, while in the experimental group, members collaboratively completed the task, which was then reviewed by peers on a wiki platform. The data collection for this study rests on pre- and post-writing tests. The obtained data suggest that collaborative writing and peer feedback on wiki significantly improved the participants’ grammatical, but not lexical, accuracy in their writing. However, the results of the post-test data also reveal that the experimental group outperformed the control group regarding the average total errors. The results confirm the efficiency with which wiki-based writing-oriented instruction can improve learners’ accuracy.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".