Does Prewriting Planning Positively Impact English L2 Students’ Integrated Writing Performance?
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 study compared English L2 writers’ (N = 111) performance on an integrated writing task from the Canadian Academic English Language (CAEL) Assessment under three prewriting planning conditions: required self-timed planning required fixed time planning, and suggested (i.e., optional) planning. The participants’ integrated essays were scored according to the CAEL writing bands by raters at Paragon Testing Inc. The effect of planning condition on the participants' planning time, writing time, and integrated writing scores were analyzed using MANOVA. The student interviews were analyzed using thematic content analysis. The results indicated that planning time was the only variable impacted by planning condition, with students in the required self-timed planning condition taking more time to plan before beginning to write. Students’ perceptions about prewriting planning are discussed in terms of implications for the teaching and assessment of L2 integrated writing.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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