What Can Students Tell Us about “Skill Building” in Canadian Writing Studies?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper comes from narrative research that I did with ten former students who reflected on their experiences with writing both in a first-year writing class and beyond. As the participants and I worked together, it became clear that there was the tension between the way they described process and skill building in writing pedagogy. They emphasized that process and scaffolding were integral to their learning, but they equally emphasized the one-off, skills-oriented components of our work. Many conversations in Canadian writing studies have focused on dismantling or resisting the skills narrative, but the tension in the participants’ responses prompted me to think about this differently. The paper explores the tension between skills and process to argue that perhaps skill building has its place in our contexts, and that we as writing teachers and scholars must think about it differently in order to articulate the value of the work that we do. If we can use the skills-oriented components of our courses to open spaces to discuss the less quantifiable elements of our work that often get overlooked (i.e., scaffolding), then we may put ourselves in a better position to advocate for increased resources and funding.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".