Exploring Students’ Perceptions of ESL Writing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Writing has always been regarded as playing a prominent role in learning a second language. Research within this discipline has mainly focused on the development of writing skill, but in recent years, some researchers have examined students’ perceptions of writing. The purpose of this study was to investigate students’ perceptions about an academic writing course and writing in general. A total of 64 female students from an ESP program participated in the study. The general design of the study was quantitative and qualitative in nature as a questionnaire and a focus-group interview were implemented for data collection. A combination of quantitative and qualitative procedures was employed to analyze the data collected via the questionnaire and the focus group interview respectively. The overall results demonstrated the students’ positive views towards the Academic Writing Course (AWC) in particular and ESL writing in general. The major findings demonstrated students’ awareness of their needs and ESL writing requirements. The study concluded with recommendations for future research.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it