MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1660227139 · doi:10.18806/tesl.v20i1.936

An Analysis of One Learning Styles Instrument for Language Students

2002· article· en· W1660227139 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTESL Canada Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLearning Styles and Cognitive Differences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyLearning stylesStyle (visual arts)Mathematics educationReliability (semiconductor)Foreign languageCognitive styleEnglish as a foreign languageValidityLanguage assessmentPopulationLanguage acquisitionPedagogyPsychometricsDevelopmental psychologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research on learning styles focuses on how students prefer to learn. This study tested the reliability and validity of the authors' newly developed Learning Styles Indicator and explored whether reliability and validity hold true across a population of native speakers (NS) and non-native speakers (NNS) of English. This new Learning Styles Indicator was used to investigate the learning style preferences of three groups of language learners: English as a second language (ESL) students, freshman English composition students, and foreign language (FL) students. The data reveal clear learning style preferences for each of the three groups of learners. The results have classroom implications for ESL teachers, foreign language teachers, and freshman composition teachers.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it