On the Effectiveness of Scaffolding Strategies and Task orientation on Receptive and Productive Knowledge of Lexical Collocations

The present study aimed at investigating the effects of scaffolding strategies using input and output-oriented tasks on Iranian EFL learners' receptive and productive knowledge of lexical collocations. For this purpose, 540 adult intermediate-level EFL learners- both male and female- were selected and divided into six experimental groups; three input-oriented and three output-oriented tasks. Each experimental group received treatment under one of the three scaffolding strategies of direct corrective feedback, cooperative group technique, and visual cues. After the treatment period, a 40-item multiple-choice test and a 40-item fill-in-the-blanks test were administered to assess the participants' receptive and productive collocations knowledge. To analyze the data, two separate two-way ANOVA procedures were used. The results indicated that visual cues were the most effective scaffolding strategy in teaching lexical collocations. Moreover, the cooperative group technique had a significant positive impact on learning collocations compared to direct corrective feedback. The results also showed that the participants in the output-oriented tasks group significantly outperformed those in the input-oriented tasks group. These findings can have practical implications for language learners, teachers, and materials developers, and theoretical implications for researchers.

EFFECTS OF USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING (STAD) AND CONVENTIONAL LEARNING ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND ATTITUDE IN PRIMARY SCHOOL

This study aims to examine the effect of cooperative learning instructional methods (STAD) and conventional learning instructional methods on achievement and attitudes in the subject of Mathematics in Primary Schools. The objective of this study is to detect an instructional method of learning that can improve the achievement and attitudes of students since primary school in the subject of Mathematics. This study applies a time series quasi-experimental design. The research instruments used were pre-test, test 1, test 2, post-test, attitude questionnaires 1,2, and 3, and interview. The data analysis approach was evaluated using a one-way ANOVA to determine the differences between the experimental and control groups. The study findings for pre-test achievement for the cooperative group (n=40) were M = 38.20 (SD = 8.321), test 1 was M = 44.75 (SD = 8.20), test 2 was M = 55.28 (SD = 7.03), and post-test was M = 66.53 (SD = 9.48) while the mean conventional group (n=40) for pre-test was M = 42.20 (SD = 10.80) 1 min test M = 41.75 (SD = 10.07), 2 min test M = 41.78 (SD = 8.78) and post-test mean M = 43.33 (SD = 9.74). The findings of the questionnaire were questionnaire 1 M = 43.10 (SD = 9.17), questionnaire 2 M = 56.05 (SD = 3.47), and questionnaire 3 was M = 63.70 (SD = 3.79) for the treatment group while the control group was the questionnaire 1 M = 40.33 (SD = 10.63), questionnaire 2 M = 45.44 (SD = 8.63) and questionnaire 3 mean value M = 48.71 (SD = 7.66). Findings of the study through interviews also showed that there were significant differences in favor of the cooperative group in student achievement and student attitudes. The results showed that students in cooperative learning classes outperformed conventional learning students.

Reporting of tobacco use and impact on outcomes in cancer cooperative group clinical trials: A systematic scoping review.

40 Background: Continued smoking after a diagnosis of cancer negatively impacts cancer outcomes but the impact of tobacco on many innovative treatments has not yet been well established. Collecting and evaluating tobacco use in cancer clinical trials may advance understanding of the consequences of tobacco use on specific treatment modalities. We performed a systematic scoping review of the frequency of reporting and analysis of tobacco use in clinical trials run by cancer cooperative clinical trial groups. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify cancer cooperative group clinical trials published from January 2017 to October 2019 using Medline, Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials using OvidSP. Eligible studies evaluated either systemic and/or radiation therapies, involved at least one cancer cooperative group, included > 100 adult patients and reported on at least one primary or secondary endpoint, which included overall survival (OS), disease/progression-free survival (DFS/PFS), response rates, toxicities/adverse events, or quality of life (QoL). Secondary analyses of previously published trials were excluded. Results: Among 14843 identified studies, 91 studies representing 90 trials met inclusion criteria. 24% were phase II trials, 2% phase II/III and 74% phase III. Trial start dates ranged from 1995-2015 with most (29%) between 2007-2008; median trial sample size was 406 (range: 100-4994); 86% involved systematic therapy, 35% involved radiation; 14% were lung and 5% were head and neck trials. 51% of trials had a curative intent, 33% were palliative and 16% involved hematologic cancers. 74 studies reported on OS, 73 DFS/PFS, and 88 toxicity/QoL. 19 studies reported baseline tobacco use information, while two reported collecting follow-up tobacco use. Of those collecting baseline tobacco use, only 7 reported any analysis of the impact of tobacco on clinical outcomes. There was significant heterogeneity in the reporting of baseline tobacco use: 5 reported never/ever status, 10 reported never/ex-smoker/current smoker status; 4 reported some measure of smoking intensity; none reported on verifying smoking status or second hand smoke exposure. Trials of tobacco related (lung and head and neck) cancers were more likely to report baseline tobacco use compared to non-tobacco related cancers (83% vs 6% p < 0.001). Conclusions: Few cancer cooperative group clinical trials report and analyze trial participants’ baseline tobacco use, and even fewer collect follow up information. Significant heterogeneity exists in reporting tobacco use. Routine standardized collection and reporting of tobacco use, both at baseline and follow up in clinical trials, should be implemented to enable investigators to evaluate the clinical impact of tobacco use on new cancer therapies.