Describing the Effect of Portfolios on Iranian EFL Learners’ Use of Metacognitive Strategies in Writing Skill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The significance of metacognitive strategies in enhancing second language (L2) writing proficiency is well established. This study explored the impact of portfolio-based instruction on the application of metacognitive strategies in writing among Iranian learners of English to provide them learning opportunities to improve the education quality. A total of 50 intermediate-level female students were randomly divided into an experimental group and a control group. To assess their use of metacognitive strategies in writing, participants completed a questionnaire. During the intervention, the experimental group received explicit instruction on metacognitive writing strategies through the portfolio process, which involved revising their compositions based on feedback. In contrast, the control group underwent a similar instructional process but without the revision component. Data were analyzed using a one-way ANCOVA test. The findings revealed that (a) portfolio-based strategy instruction had a significant positive effect on learners' metacognitive strategy use in writing, and (b) learners' overall writing performance improved due to the strategy training. These results further support the effectiveness of strategy instruction, particularly when incorporated into classroom portfolio activities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".