Writing strategies and SRSD in a Danish context – A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Writing skills are important for academic achievement. In the present pilot study, we aimed to investigate whether a four-week intervention period, three lessons a week, could improve students' writing skills, self-efficacy for writing, attitudes to writing, and implicit theories of writing, and to examine whether there was an association between these constructs and writing skills. Twenty-one 7th grade Danish students participated in the study. We applied and adapted the evidence-based writing intervention, Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) for persuasive writing into a Danish school setting. Results showed that the SRSD writing intervention seems to be a promising method for improving students’ persuasive writing skills in Danish schools. However, future studies should include a control group and more participants to achieve clearer results and more statistical power. There were significant associations between the included measures. • SRSD is a promising method for writing instruction in Denmark. • It is important for teachers to be aware of students' self-efficacy for writing, attitudes to writing and implicit theories of writing. • It is essential to prioritize writing instruction in Danish schools.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".