Developing Expressive Skills through Non–Linear Thinking Tasks: An Exploratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
EFL learners face dual challenges in writing sessions due to inadequate writing skills and the inability to generate and organize ideas as expected by the instructor. Differences in cultural backgrounds too act as hindrances and prevent them from thinking in a uni-directional way. Thus, a good number of learners show disinterest in writing sessions. Therefore, it becomes imperative to encourage learners to think differently from peers and acknowledge their efforts. The study adopted an exploratory sequential method to find the impact of non-linear/multiple-solution tasks on the expressive writing skills of learners. The sample comprised 39 students pursuing the first level of an undergraduate course at Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University. This study went through two stages of data analysis, first: Performance Evaluation, based on a four-level assessment process. The performance indicators were: fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. Second, a questionnaire was distributed to the participants after the fourth intervention to measure four indicators of motivation: attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction. The results showed a significant relationship between divergent thinking, motivation, autonomy, and expressive writing skills. Based on the results of the present study, it can be suggested to give adequate importance to divergent thinking to develop expressive writing skills in students.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".