MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2184641620 · doi:10.18806/tesl.v32i2.1208

The Effect of Writing Task and Task Conditions on Colombian EFL Learners’ Language Use

2015· article· en· W2184641620 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Kim McDonough, César García Fuentes

Bibliographic record

VenueTESL Canada Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConcordia UniversityCanada Research ChairsMinistère de l'Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport Québec
KeywordsOperationalizationParagraphTask (project management)Second language writingPsychologyHumanitiesLinguisticsPedagogySecond languageComputer scienceArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This classroom study examines whether English L2 writers’ language use differs depending on the writing task (operationalized as paragraph type), and task con- ditions (operationalized as individual or collaborative writing). The texts written by English L2 university students in Colombia (N = 26) in response to problem/ solution and cause/effect writing tasks were compared in terms of analytic ratings, use of target grammatical clauses, and accuracy. Approximately half of the students wrote individually while the other half collaborated in pairs. Results indicated that the writing task was a significant factor, with cause/effect para- graphs rated higher and having more target clauses than the problem/solution paragraphs. Task condition was also a significant factor, with collaborative texts more accurate than individual texts. Implications for L2 writing pedagogy are highlighted. Cette étude s’est déroulée dans une salle de classe et a examiné dans quelle mesure l’utilisation de la langue par des étudiants d’ALS varie selon la tâche d’écri- ture (types de paragraphe) et les conditions de la tâche (travail individuel ou en groupe). Des étudiants d’ALS dans une université en Colombie (N=26) ont rédigé des textes cause-effet et problème-solution. Nous avons comparé leurs textes en fonction d’éléments analytiques, de l’emploi de propositions grammaticales ciblées et de l’exactitude. Environ la moitié des étudiants ont écrit de façon individuelle; les autres ont rédigé en groupe. Les résultats indiquent que la tâche d’écriture constitue un facteur significatif, les paragraphes cause-effet ayant reçu de meil- leures évaluations et comportant plus de propositions ciblées que les paragraphes problème-solution. Les conditions de la tâche se sont aussi avérées être un facteur significatif, les textes collaboratifs étant plus précis que les textes écrits individuel- lement. Les implications pour l’enseignement de l’écriture en L2 sont exposées.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations51
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTESL Canada JournalSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207