The Effect of Writing Task and Task Conditions on Colombian EFL Learners’ Language Use
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 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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