Using Lexical Cohesion Cloze Exercises to Improve EFL Learners’ Reading Comprehension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present research examined the effects of lexical cohesion cloze reading exercises (in which deletions involved various types of lexical cohesive devices) on improving EFL students’ reading comprehension. Sixty-four Thai university students were randomly assigned to control and experimental groups. Both groups received 12 sessions of skill-based instruction, but the experimental group had additional practice in recognizing lexical relations through cloze passages. The mean pretest and posttest scores were compared using paired samples t-test. Post-treatment questionnaires were used to investigate students’ attitudes towards the assigned extra reading exercises. Students in the experimental group achieved significantly higher mean posttest scores than the control group (p < 0.05). There were no significant difference in attitude mean scores between the control group and the experimental group (p > 0.05). The experimental group, however, were more positive towards the use of the extra reading exercises and found the technique to be useful in fostering their English reading comprehension. These findings indicated that lexical cohesion cloze reading is effective in improving the reading performance of Thai EFL students and should be used to equip EFL students with the knowledge they need for better reading comprehension.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.009 | 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".