Alternative sources of feedback and second language writing development in university content courses
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
Abstract Despite a strong intuitive sense held by instructors that feedback practices can help scaffold L2 writers’ composition processes a number of questions remain concerning the manner best suited to deliver this feedback and its ultimate impact on literacy development. This paper presents findings from on an eight-month longitudinal ethnographic case study of five international Japanese undergraduate students and their efforts to navigate the writing requirements of their content courses at a large Canadian university. While confirming the importance of instructor based feedback practices and their potential as valuable language learning experiences, findings from this research also highlight language learners’ perceived importance of “alternative sources of feedback” for their L2 writing development. Friends, roommates, and writing center tutors amongst others, were seen as valuable sources of advice on writing that could compensate for perceived problems with content instructor’s feedback while offering feedback opportunities which were more closely associated to students ideal representation of this pedagogic tool. Implications focus on the advantages of widening our focus when understanding of feedback practices to also include paying closer attention to the impact of the ‘invisible partners’ which also help shape students' literacy development and the bridges that might be built between these and more formal modes of instruction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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