The Perspectives of Suadi University Instructors and Learners on the Product and Process Approaches to Second-Language Writing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates instructors’ and learners’ perspectives on using the product and process approaches to teach second-language writing at a Saudi University, focusing on the variations in perspective between instructors and learners. To this end, the researcher undertook a mixed-method study. Two questionnaires, each consisting of ten items, were used to collect data from 72 participants (47.22% instructors, 52.78% learners); the data were analyzed using the independent samples t-test function of IBM SPSS statistics 28.0. In addition, semi-structured interviews with 12 participants (50% instructors, 50% learners) were conducted to gain a holistic picture. The overall findings reveal no statistically significant difference between instructors’ and learners’ perspectives on the product approach to second-language writing. However, the findings indicate a statistically significant difference in their perspectives on the process approach; instructors perceived the process approach to writing more positively than learners. The current study assists instructors in assessing whether their preferred teaching approach differs from that of their students, enabling them to adopt an ideal approach for both parties.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".