L2 French students' conversations during interactive writing tasks and their interaction mindset
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
Abstract This study explores the relationship between L2 French students' conversations during interactive writing tasks and their interaction mindset, which is their perception about peer interaction. Students ( N = 51) in three, high‐intermediate/low‐advanced French L2 classes completed an interaction mindset questionnaire and two interactive writing tasks during a 13‐week semester. Each class was randomly assigned to one type of interactive writing task: interactive planning (i.e., interaction during the planning phase only), interactive revision (i.e., interaction during the revision phase only), or collaborative writing (i.e., interaction during planning, writing, and revision phases). Their conversations were audio‐recorded, and transcripts were coded in terms of what they had talked about: content, organization, language, and other (i.e., task management, reading/rereading, and off‐task talk). Pearson's correlations indicated that the students' interaction mindset had a positive relationship with language and a negative relationship with content. Suggestions for instructors with an interest in interactive writing tasks are provided.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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