MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1838959272 · doi:10.29173/mruer167

Digital technology for elementary English language learning (ELL) students

2014· article· en· W1838959272 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Danielle Hendricks

Bibliographic record

VenueMount Royal Undergraduate Education Review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Learning in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationLiteracyEnglish languagePedagogyLanguage acquisitionFocus (optics)PsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

English language learners (ELL) are students who are learning English not as their first, but as second or even third language. A lot of the time these students do not speak English at home because they use their first language as the primary home language. These students may only get the opportunity to learn to speak English in school. In early elementary, kindergarten through Grade three, the primary focus is to develop language and literacy skills which will prepare the students for further educational learning. The old saying is that; first you learn to read and then you read to learn. In this study, I questioned how technology can be used to engage the early elementary ELL students to develop language and literacy skills. I conducted an anonymous survey and an email interview to gather my data. I found my results were inconclusive for determining which technologies would benefit the ELL elementary teacher in helping to develop language and literacy skills. There are many valuable technologies available; however, further research will be necessary to draw any distinct conclusions.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.885

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMount Royal Undergraduate Education ReviewSame topicMobile Learning in EducationFrench-language works237,207