Discourse Competence as an Essential Variable in Developing Grade 11 English First Additional Language Learners’ Writing 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
Discourse competence, which entails the interrelatedness of concepts in sentences in spoken and written language, is essential in the development of learners' receptive and productive English skills. Learners with excellent discourse competency skills can better grasp spoken and written texts on a local and global level. The main objective of this paper was to investigate the impact of discourse competence in grade 11 English First Additional Language (EFAL) learners’ writing skills. Halliday and Hassan’s Model of Evaluation framework, which advocates that the primary means of linking texts in discourse is through lexical cohesion, underpinned this study. This paper adopted an interpretivist paradigm. A qualitative approach was employed and a case study design was used to gather data from 40 purposely selected grade 11 learners. Document analysis was used. Findings indicated that (i) restricted knowledge of lexicon, (ii) inadequate knowledge about reiteration and collocation, and (iii) insufficient knowledge about appropriate use of cohesive and coherent devices, were among the established reasons for learners’ writing deficiencies. This paper recommends that essay writing skills can best be achieved through the implementation of the proposed recent language teaching methods such as the Text-based Approach, which uses texts to teach language structures and writing skills. The Department of Education should monitor the development of writing skills from the learners’ earliest years of schooling.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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