The effect of a traditional, a process writing and a combined talking and writing instructional approach on the quality of secondary English students' written response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The English Language Arts (ELA) curriculum in Manitoba is divided into six areas: reading, writing, listening, speaking, viewing and representing. Those elements are important not only to the language arts, but to all areas of subject learning. Being able to read and write, to interact with ideas and to effectively communicate responses to those ideas is essential to experiencing success in school. With the importance of written communication being what it is, instructors need to offer opportunities for developing and improving the quality of students' written responses to texts studies. Grade school ELA classes present writing lessons in a variety of ways in efforts to help students clearly present ideas and responses to topics and issues encountered in the classroom and in their communities. Attempting to discover whether different instructional approaches can impact the quality of writing is what this study is about. By examining the effects of (1) a "traditional", teacher-centered approach to instruction, (2) a writing response approach to instruction, and (3) a combination of student talking and writing approach to instruction. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".