Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although much research has explored computer mediated communication for its \napplication in second language instruction, there still exists a need for empirical results \nfrom research to guide practitioners who wish to introduce web-based activities into their \ninstruction. This study was undertaken to explore collaborative online task-based \nactivities for the instruction of ESL academic writing. Nine ESL students in their midtwenties, \nenrolled at a community college in Ontario, engaged in two separate online \nprewriting activities in both a synchronous and an asynchronous environment. The \nstudents were interviewed in order to explore their perceptions of how the activities \naffected the generation and organization of ideas for academic essays. These interviews \nwere triangulated with examples of the students' online writing, nonparticipatory \nobservations of the students' interactions, and a discussion with the course instructor. \nThe results of the study reveal that a small majority of students felt that \nbrainstorming in writing with their peers in an asynchronous online discussion created a \ngrammatical and lexical framework that supported idea generation and organization. The \nstudents did not feel that the synchronous chat activity was as successful. Although they \nfelt that this activity also contributed to the generation of ideas, synchronous chat \nintroduced a level of difficulty in communication that hindered the students' engagement \nin the task and failed to assist them with the organization of their ideas. The students also \nnoted positive aspects of the web-based activities that were not related to prewriting \ntasks, for example, improved typing and word processing skills. Directions for future \nresearch could explore whether online prewriting activities can assist students in the \ncreation of essays that are syntactically or lexically complex.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".