Seeing eye to eye? The academic writing needs of graduate and undergraduate students from students’ and instructors’ perspectives
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
This article reports on findings from a research project designed to assess undergraduate and graduate students’ language-learning needs in the context of a new academic language support center at a Canadian university. A total of 432 students of English as an additional language and 93 instructors responded to the questionnaires, which asked them to provide importance ratings of academic language skills, to assess their own or their students’ skill status, and to respond to open-ended questions. This article reports on data collected from the writing section of the study.The findings indicated that there is much overlap in the skill items identified as ‘very important’ between graduate and undergraduate students and instructors. Students’ self-assessments and instructors’ assessments of their students differed dramatically, however. In addition to important pedagogical implications, this study suggests a need to be cautious when interpreting needs assessment results because what instructors or students consider as an important skill to possess may not be what students need to develop.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it