Exploring task effects on register variation in second language learners’ writing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Task-based research often focuses on the main effects of task variables on measures of complexity, accuracy, and fluency of second language (L2) writing performance. This study aimed to extend this line of research by examining the main and interaction effects of task type, learner L2 proficiency, and L2 study on register variation in L2 learners’ writing. Each of 42 Chinese learners of English as a foreign language responded to independent and integrated writing tasks before and after nine months of English language study. Each essay ( N = 168) was rated on level of formality and tagged for various lexico-syntactic features. Overall, integrated essays were judged to use more formal language and were more informationally dense than were the independent essays. More proficient students were judged to use more formal language than did less proficient students. After instruction, students’ writing became more formal, more informationally dense, and more narrative. The findings and their implications for the teaching and assessment of L2 writing are discussed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| 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".