Differences between Students' Linguistic Knowledge and Text Production Ability: A Case of the Use of Cohesion as a Resource of Texture in Academic Writing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assuming cohesion as a non-structural resource of texture in text, the present study analyzed students' academic essays to establish the role of cohesion in creating text. A survey was also conducted to gauge students' beliefs about their ability to use cohesive devices in writing. The results of the text analysis and the survey were then used to identify differences between students' linguistic knowledge and their actual use of the cohesion devices. The results revealed statistically significant relationships between the textual variables of cohesion to the extent that the sample texts had visibly dense texture. The results of the survey variables were also found to be statistically significant. In addition, there were gaps in students' understanding of the concept of cohesive devices and their actual use in the texts. The study recommends explicit teaching of cohesive devices rather than as grammatical entities as well as training in expanding the lexical base of the students to help them achieve discourse competence appropriate to the expectations of the academic discourse community.
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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".