MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2939335831 · doi:10.11575/ajer.v65i1.56630

Beyond presentation effects: Understanding the role of language by hand in the holistic rating of young students’ writing in Grade 4

2018· article· en· W2939335831 on OpenAlex
Hetty Roessingh, David Nordstokke, Mitch Colp

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Calgary · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWriting and Handwriting Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHandwritingFluencyHumanitiesPsychologyLiteracyStyle (visual arts)PedagogyArtComputer scienceMathematics educationLiteratureArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this study is to glean research insights into the role of handwriting on the holistic rating of young students’ expository writing samples in Grade 4. We focus on the interaction of compositional fluency—the total number of words (TNW) generated, the quality of the handwriting, the style of handwriting, and the holistic rating of writing outcomes on an expository prompt. We observed a relationship between fluency, quality of handwriting, and holistic rating of the writing samples, suggesting the need for sustained instructional attention to handwriting to achieve academic literacy in Grade 4. More than merely “looking pretty on the page,” the quality of the handwriting is reflective of the neuro-motor control required to develop fluency or productivity for the academic requirements of upper elementary writing tasks. Samples of Grade 4 handwriting are provided to illustrate and support the quantitative findings of this inquiry. L’objectif de cette étude est d’obtenir un aperçu du rôle de l’écriture dans l’évaluation globale de récits par de jeunes élèves en 4e année. Nous nous penchons sur la fluidité du texte—le nombre total de mots rédigés, la qualité de l’écriture, le style de l’écriture et l’évaluation globale du récit sur un sujet donné. Nous avons noté un lien entre la fluidité, la qualité de l’écriture et l’évaluation globale des récits, ce qui suggère le besoin d’une attention pédagogique soutenue à l’écriture, de sorte à ce que les élèves atteignent une littératie académique en 4e année. La valeur d’une belle écriture dépasse le sens esthétique : la qualité de l’écriture reflète la régulation neuromotrice nécessaire au développement de la fluidité et au rendement qu’exigent les travaux de rédaction dans les années scolaires subséquentes. Des échantillons de rédactions par les élèves en 4e année viennent illustrer et appuyer nos résultats quantitatifs. Mots clés : littératie écrite; écriture; fluidité textuelle; qualité du récit

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.296
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.282 · 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