Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of revision has been recognised by numerous scholars of the teaching and learning of writing (Abad & Rodríguez-Gonzalo, 2023; Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Camps, 2020; Horning & Becker, 2006), especially if it is understood as a recursive and transversal phase that affects all levels of language (Álvarez Angulo, 2011; Camps, 2020; Marin & Legros, 2006). To test whether group revision is an effective tool in the teaching-learning process of writing in Spanish as a first language, in this paper we analyse large group revision sessions recorded in the natural context of a university classroom in which we implemented a didactic writing sequence (Camps, 2020; Dolz et al., 2001; Rodríguez-Gonzalo & Abad-Beltrán, 2023). The objective of this paper—an instrumental case study (Stake, 2007; Yin, 2009)—is to describe the interactions that take place in this revision process, categorise the aspects of the different linguistic levels to be identified and describe the students' proposed actions aimed at modifying the texts. The results show that approaching the revision phase collectively encourages the development of the students' metalinguistic and meta-rhetorical awareness (Horning, 2006), provided that this phase is not limited to the correction of errors in the final text and is conceived as a complex process that represents growth, progress and discovery (Haar, 2006) in the composition of a piece of writing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".