Comparison of Two Writing Processes: Direct versus Translated Composition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To explore the results of two different composing processes, one writing directly in English and the other writing first in Chinese and then translating into English, this study concerns itself with the essays resulting from the two composing processes performed by participants with different levels of proficiency. The results show that the quality the compositions is significantly influenced by the writing modes and this vary with students’ L2 proficiency. The lower-level learners benefit most from the translated writing, whereas there is no significant difference for the higher-level learners. Key words: L2 writing, L1 influence, L2 proficiency, direct writing, translated writing Resume: Pour explorer les resultats des deux processus de composition differents, l’un consistant a ecrire directement et l’autre a ecrire d’abord en chinois et puis traduire en anglais, cette etude traite les essais resultant des deux processus de composition realises par des participants de differents niveaux. Les resultats montrent que la qualite de composition est largement influencee par le modele d’ecriture et que cela varie d’apres le niveau de maitrise de L2 des etudiants. Les apprenants de bas niveau beneficient generalement de l’ecriture traduite tandis qu’il n’y pas de differences signifiantes pour les etudiants de haut niveau. Mots-Cles: ecriture en L2, influence de L1, maitrise de L2, ecriture directe, ecriture traduite 摘要：本文採用寫作測試和問卷的方法，旨在研究受試者的英語寫作品質在直接用英語構思寫作和母語翻譯寫作的兩種模式下是否存在顯著差異。分析結果表明寫作品質受寫作模式顯著影響，並且不同水準學生的受影響程度不同。母語翻譯寫作模式對低水準學生有很大幫助，但高水準學生在兩種模式下產出的作文並沒有明顯差異。 關鍵詞：二語寫作；母語影響；二語水準；英語構思寫作；母語翻譯寫作
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".