A Model of Research Paper Writing Instructional Materials for Academic Writing Course: Needs & Documents Analysis and Model Design
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
<p>This study aimed at designing a model of instructional materials for Academic Writing Course focusing on research paper writing. The model was designed based on the Curriculum at the English Education Study Program, Faculty of Language and Art Education of IKIP PGRI Bojonegoro, East Java, Indonesia. This model was developed in order to improve students’ skill in writing research paper which is one of the prerequisite tasks before graduating from university. The steps of this research and development consist of needs analysis, document analysis, model design, model development, and model experimentation. The researchers conducted needs analysis to the fifth semester students and three academic writing teachers, in order to generate information dealing with the students’ needs in academic writing course materials. The needs analysis and documents analysis were dug up through questionnaire, interview, and discussion among students and academic writing teachers. The documents analyzed in this study were syllabus, lesson plan, and the existing textbook. The model design used is derived from Borg and Gall (1983) and Sukmadinata (2008), in which there are four steps, i.e. (1) exploration phase; (2) model development phase; (3) model experimentation phase; and (4) dissemination and model implementation phase. The results of needs analysis questionnaire reveal that students need to be taught how to write academic writing in terms of journal article since it will be the final project of the students at the end of their study in university. Instructional materials with different strategies focused on research paper writing are needed by the students.</p>
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 | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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