An Experimental Study of the Effects of Production-oriented Approach and Task-based Language Teaching on Senior High School Students’ English Writing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on theoretical foundation of Production-oriented Approach (POA) and Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT), a nine-week quasi-experimental study was conducted to explore the effects of POA and TBLT on senior high school students’ English writing. Two parallel classes of grade two in a senior high school in Hohhot, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region were chosen as experimental classes, which were randomly assigned to either POA group or TBLT group. Combining standardized writing tests, validated questionnaires with semi-structured interviews, it aims at addressing the following two research questions: (1) What are the effects of POA and TBLT on complexity, accuracy and fluency of senior high school students’ English writing? (2) What are the effects of POA and TBLT on the senior high school students’ critical thinking skills? The research results showed that: (1) There existed significant difference of writing scores between POA group and TBLT group. Compared with TBLT, the application of POA was more contributed to improving complexity and accuracy of English writing of senior high school students. (2) There was no significant difference between two groups in the mean scores of overall critical thinking skills. But it existed significant difference in the dimension of analysis between POA group and TBLT group. Finally, according to the findings of the research, some suggestions for improving efficiency of English writing teaching are put forward for high school English teachers and the limitations of the study and suggestions for the future research are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".