A Comparative Study between the Use of Adjectives and Adjective Clauses Based on Bloom’s Taxonomy in Writing Sentence Levels Versus Paragraph Levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper was to examine English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students’ comprehension of adjectives and adjective clauses by writing in different phases. The first phase, students were writing an individual sentence by using adjectives and adjectives clauses. The next phase was creating paragraphs using the same rules that they used previously. The framework of the present research was Bloom’s taxonomy to examine students’ development from the lowest levels of cognition into the highest levels of the hierarchy. The design of this study was descriptive qualitative research focusing on 20 students’ writing who used the target grammatical structures. To analyze the collected data, the author used themes to divide the data based on a sentence level and a paragraph level. The results of the research revealed EFL students’ success in applying the target grammatical rules at the lowest cognitive levels by composing an individual sentence. However, the findings showed that only six students out of 20 were able to reach the highest levels of cognitive to create paragraphs using adjective clauses; whereas, the rest of the students failed to create paragraphs using adjective clauses. However, all students successfully composed simple and accurate individual sentences using both one adjective and the other for using adjective clauses, which is considered the lowest levels of the hierarchy.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".