Investigating Students’ Writing Skills in Generating Descriptive Texts: Experiences Learned from English for Specific Purposes (ESP) Contexts in Privates Universities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Writing occupies a paramount role in the conveyance of ideas, demanding a profound comprehension of the nuances integral to crafting impeccable written compositions. The research under consideration was undertaken with the objective of delving into the writing skills of students and discerning the challenges they encounter in composing descriptive texts. Employing a mixed-method approach, the study engaged English learners at STIE AMM Mataram, constituting a cohort of 28 students. To attain a comprehensive understanding of their writing abilities and difficulties, the research employed writing tests and interviews as research instruments. The research outcomes revealed a mean score of 69.92 for the students, indicative of a concerning trend of inadequate proficiency in writing descriptive texts, essentially categorizing their abilities as 'poor.' A closer examination of the data delineated specific performance distributions among the students: 12% garnered scores below 60, designating them as 'poor,' while 40% fell within the 61-70 score range, also categorized as 'poor.' Moreover, 36% secured scores in the 71-80 range, positioning them in the 'average' category, and a mere 12% earned scores designated as 'very good. Vocabulary and organization stood out with ratings categorized as 'good to average,' showcasing relative strengths. Conversely, content, grammar, and mechanics were characterized by a 'fair to poor' categorization, underscoring significant areas of difficulty. In particular, students grappled with challenges concerning grammar, content development, and mechanical aspects of writing. In light of these findings, it is evident that students encounter multifaceted difficulties, particularly in the realms of grammar, content creation, and mechanics. As a viable solution, it is recommended that English teachers prioritize providing students with ample opportunities for writing practice. These opportunities should be designed to specifically enhance content development and grammar proficiency in writing descriptive texts.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".