The rational evaluation of carbon-based conductive ink performance is critical to both industrial production and applications. Herein, a model to evaluate writing performance of conductive ink by line resistance was proposed by investigating possible relations among different parameters and establishing relevant model to estimate ink writing performance. Bulk conductive inks were prepared and characterized to provide samples for model. To improve the precision of model, the impact of external factors including writing speed and angle was studied. Nonlinear regression and back propagation artificial neural network were employed to estimate line resistance, and cross check validation was conducted to prove robustness and precision of model. Most importantly, the investigation will open up a new path for the exploration of other carbon-based handwritten electronic devices.

While learners may have access to reference tools during second language (L2) writing, the latest developments in machine translation (MT), such as Google Translate requires examination as to how using the tool may factor into the second language learners’ writing products. To this end, the purpose of this study was to examine how MT may have an effect on L2 learners’ writing products relative to when writers wrote directly in L2, or translated a text to English from Korean. EFL university learners were asked to write for prompts that were counterbalanced for three writing modes and three writing topics. The learners’ writing products were analyzed with Coh-Metrix to provide information on text characteristics at the multilevel. The results indicate that MT could facilitate the learners to improve fluency and cohesion, produce syntactically complex sentences, and write concrete words to express their target messages. Pedagogical implications are provided for how MT can be used to improve the quality of the L2 learners’ writing products.

The present study aimed at exploring the differences in EFL learners’ writing performance in two writing modes (direct and translated writing) in two writing genres (argumentation and narration) depending upon their L2 writing proficiency. For this study, 46 college freshmen (43.5% of high level and 56.5% of low level) performed four writing tasks individually. The results of the study are as follows: 1) their writing performance in the direct mode was significantly better regardless of genre and L2 writing proficiency, although there were substantial differences between the two genres in the degree of significance; 2) their writing performance in argumentative prose was significantly better only in the direct mode; and 3) only for low-level learners in the direct mode, there were significant differences in their performance in the writing genre, favoring argumentation. Theoretical and pedagogical relevance of the findings is addressed.

This study aimed to explore the etfect of translated writing on English writing performance of Korean learners of English and their perceptions on translated writing in comparison with direct writing depending on their English proficiency level. A total of 75 male high school students were divided into two groups according to their L2 writing expertise and were asked to perform two ditferent writing tasks: 1) write directly in English (direct writing), and 2) write in Korean first and then translate the draft into English (translated writing). 136 written compositions (68 direct writing samples and 68 translated writing samples each) from 68 students were selected for analytical scoring and T-Unit analysis. The 68 students also filled a survey questionnaire which asked which type of writing was preferred for their English writing. The results showed that the performance of the direct writing was significantly better than that of the translated writing for hjghlevel writers, while there were no great ditferences among low-Ievel writers between the two writing tasks. T-Unit analysis revealed that syntactic complexity between direct and translated writings by two proficiency groups did not yield any statistically significant ditferences, and more students preferred translated writing to di rect writi ng in general. 8ased on the results, pedagogical implications are suggested.

Aqueous gold nanoparticle dispersion was synthesized by chemical reduction method using diethanolamine as reducing agent and polyethyleneimine as dispersion stabilizer. The synthesis conditions for the stable dispersion of the gold nanoparticle suspension were determined by changing the amount of the reducing agent and dispersant during the wet chemical synthesis procedures. The face centered cubic lattice structure of the gold nanoparticles was confirmed by using X-ray diffraction and the morphologies of the nanoparticles were observed by transmission electron microscope. The synthesized gold nanoparticle dispersion was concentrated by evaporating the dispersion medium at room temperature followed by the addition of ethyleneglycol as humectant for the increase of the elastic properties to obtain gold nanoparticle inks for direct ink writing process. The line patterns were obtained with the gold nanoparticle inks during the writing procedures and the morphologies of the fine patterns were observed by scanning electron microscope.

This study investigates the effects of indirect and direct error feedback on Korean college students’ accuracy improvement in writing and their responses to the feedback they received. The 32 participants of the study were divided into four groups of different error feedback conditions: indirect feedback, indirect feedback along with metalinguistic feedback, direct feedback, and direct feedback along with metalinguistic feedback. Direct feedback was full, explicit error correction, while indirect feedback was coded error correction in which errors were underlined and marked with code. Metalinguistic feedback was marginal explanations about errors. Analysis of error rates in the students’ first and last essay writing did not show statistically significant difference in the accuracy improvement of the four groups. In other words, indirect error feedback was not more effective than direct feedback. However, the gain score in each group showed that indirect feedback and direct feedback were more effective when they were combined with metalinguistic feedback. In particular, the students’ learning diary clearly indicated that the students valued error feedback on their writing and that follow-up feedback was crucial in providing indirect error feedback.