Getting towards Native-Speaker Writing in Examinations

The data contains 40 IELTS Task One texts, 15 written by non-native speakers (CEFR B2 (ACTFL A-L/M/H) English-level students) and 25 model texts written by natives, selected for error analysis. The two authors, assisted by Jafar Tavakoli, identified, classified, and quantified the errors, based initially on Hyland's (2005) framework. This, however, was found to be insufficient. We then developed a much larger framework as an assessment rubric, covering three main categories, ‘communication’, ‘morpheme form and meaning’, and ‘syntax and structure’. In the article, we do not give guidance in error correction itself. We only identify errors made by students and used these to develop a master table, useable as a model for both teachers and learners worldwide. Statistically, most errors were in meaning-bearing items, including false friends, L1 transfer, interlanguage, wrong word use, syntax used with wrong semantic force, and so on. Mistakes in grammar as such seem to be statistically relatively rare – yet so many of us teachers focus more on grammar than on meaning transfer. The assessment rubric helps refocus on meaning.Generally, students at the CEFR B2 level plateau and make slower progress. It is important for students at this level to consciously raise their awareness, and this rubric can be useful for both teachers and learners to give a “statistical” set of figures of where the student has most difficulties and therefore needs to work a bit more. Teachers, therefore, can (re)design their coursework according to the frequency of the errors identified by the table. The assessment rubric, however, is suitable for learners of any intermediate to advanced level, from B1 to B2

Getting towards Native-Speaker Writing in Examinations

The data contains 40 IELTS Task One texts, 15 written by non-native speakers (CEFR B2 (ACTFL A-L/M/H) English-level students) and 25 model texts written by natives, selected for error analysis. The two authors, assisted by Jafar Tavakoli, identified, classified, and quantified the errors, based initially on Hyland's (2005) framework. This, however, was found to be insufficient. We then developed a much larger framework as an assessment rubric, covering three main categories, ‘communication’, ‘morpheme form and meaning’, and ‘syntax and structure’. In the article, we do not give guidance in error correction itself. We only identify errors made by students and used these to develop a master table, useable as a model for both teachers and learners worldwide. Statistically, most errors were in meaning-bearing items, including false friends, L1 transfer, interlanguage, wrong word use, syntax used with wrong semantic force, and so on. Mistakes in grammar as such seem to be statistically relatively rare – yet so many of us teachers focus more on grammar than on meaning transfer. The assessment rubric helps refocus on meaning.Generally, students at the CEFR B2 level plateau and make slower progress. It is important for students at this level to consciously raise their awareness, and this rubric can be useful for both teachers and learners to give a “statistical” set of figures of where the student has most difficulties and therefore needs to work a bit more. Teachers, therefore, can (re)design their coursework according to the frequency of the errors identified by the table. The assessment rubric, however, is suitable for learners of any intermediate to advanced level, from B1 to B2.THIS DATASET IS ARCHIVED AT DANS/EASY, BUT NOT ACCESSIBLE HERE. TO VIEW A LIST OF FILES AND ACCESS THE FILES IN THIS DATASET CLICK ON THE DOI-LINK ABOV

Reaching the stars

The data contain 40 IELTS Task One texts. 15 texts written by non-native speakers; 25 texts written by natives selected for error analysis. The three authors identified, classified and quantified the errors, based initially on Hylands (2005) and other frameworks; however, these were found to be insufficient. We then developed a much larger framework covering the three main categories of ‘communication mode’, ‘morpheme form and meaning’, and ‘syntax and structure’, with various specific error points. In the article, we do not give guidance in error correction itself. We have only identified the errors made by students and worked this into the development of a master table which can be used as a model for both teachers and learners worldwide. Statistically, more errors are in meaning-bearing items, including false friends, L1 transfer, interlanguage, wrong word use, syntax used with the wrong semantic force, and so on. Mistakes in grammar as such seem to be statistically relatively rare – yet so many of us teachers focus more on grammar than on meaning transfer. The table helps refocus on meaning.We targeted CEFR B2 (ACTFL A-L/M/H) English level students in our study. Generally, students at the CEFR B1 level (ACTFL IH) make slower progress and plateau. It is important for students at this level to consciously raise their awareness. This table can be useful for both teachers and learners to give a “statistical” set of figures of where the student has most difficulties and therefore needs to work a bit more. Teachers, therefore, can (re)design their coursework according to the frequency of the errors identified by the table.THIS DATASET IS ARCHIVED AT DANS/EASY, BUT NOT ACCESSIBLE HERE. TO VIEW A LIST OF FILES AND ACCESS THE FILES IN THIS DATASET CLICK ON THE DOI-LINK ABOV

Vitamin D3 might improve headache characteristics and protect against inflammation in migraine: a randomized clinical trial

Introduction: Due to anti-inflammatory effects of vitamin D3, we aimed to explore the effects of supplementation with this vitamin on headache characteristics and serum levels of pro/anti-inflammatory markers in migraineurs. Methods and materials: This placebo-controlled, double-blind study included 80 episodic migraineurs who randomly assigned into two equal groups to receive either daily dose of vitamin D3 2000 IU (50 μg) or placebo for 12 weeks. At baseline and after the trial, headache characteristics were determined using diaries and serum levels of interleukin (IL)-10, IL-6, inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS), and cyclooxygenase-2 (Cox-2) were assessed via ELISA method. Results: At the end of trial, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for baseline values, and confounders revealed that vitamin D3 supplemented group experienced significantly lower headache days per month (4.71), reduced attacks duration (12.99 h/attack), less severe headaches (5.47, visual analog scale), and lower analgesics use/month (2.85) than placebo group (6.43, 18.32, 6.38 and 4.87, respectively) (P values < 0.05). Using ANCOVA adjusted for baseline levels and confounding variables, it was found that serum levels of IL-10 and Cox-2 did not significantly differ between groups after the experiment; whereas, iNOS serum level was significantly reduced in the intervention group (106.06 U/L) comparing to the controls (156.18 U/L P : 0.001). Also, the patients receiving vitamin D3 yielded a marginally significant lower IL-6 serum concentration (76.43 ng/L) compared to placebo (93.10 ng/L) (P value:0.055). Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, we found that 2000 IU (50 μg)/day vitamin D3 supplementation for 12 weeks could improve headache characteristics and might reduce neuro-inflammation in episodic migraine. © 2020, Fondazione Società Italiana di Neurologia