MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1766002136

Instructed Second Language Acquisition Research and Its Relevance for L2 Teacher Education

2014· article· en· W1766002136 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Teaching and Learning · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSecond-language acquisitionLanguage acquisitionPsychologySecond languageLinguisticsComprehension approachRelevance (law)First languageCorrective feedbackLanguage educationMathematics educationComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two areas of second language acquisition (SLA) research are distinguished as ‘naturalistic’ and ‘instructed’ SLA. The former refers to learning a second language (L2) through exposure to and interaction with native speakers of the language in much the same way that children acquire their first language. The latter refers to learners whose experience with the L2 is through learning it in a classroom setting. This article focuses on instructed SLA and addresses two specific questions: 1) Does type of instruction make a difference in L2 learning? 2) Are particular types of corrective feedback more effective for L2 learning than others? Theoretical and empirical work relevant to both questions is reviewed and implications for L2 teaching are discussed.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.291 · 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