Academic writing and ChatGPT: Students transitioning into college in the shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic
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 paper reflects on an educator's perceived experiences and observations on the complex process of ‘passage’ when students transitioning from high school into their first-year of post-secondary education often struggle to adapt to academic writing standards. It relies on literature to further explore such a process. Written communication has become increasingly popular in formal academic and professional settings, stressing the need for effective formal writing skills. The development of online tools for aiding writing is not a new concept, but a new software development known as ChatGPT, may add to the many challenges academic writing has faced over the years. This paper reflects on the students' struggles as they navigate different courses seeking to adapt their writing skills to formal and structured written academic requirements. The COVID-19 pandemic forced many recent high school students into virtual education, uncertain of its effectiveness in developing the writing skills high school graduates require in academia. Many unknowns exist in using ChatGPT in academic contexts, especially in writing. ChatGPT can generate texts independently, raising concerns about plagiarism and its impact on students' critical thinking and writing skills. This paper hopes to contribute to pedagogical discussions on the current challenges surrounding the use of artificial intelligence technology and how better to support beginner writers in academia.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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