An Investigation into the Use and Benefits of Assistive Technologies for English as a Second Language Users' Literacy Development.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This investigation uses the quasi experimental one group pretest-posttest research design to identify vocabulary learning strategies specific to an International Practical Nurse Diploma program, at a western college in Canada. Vocabulary Learning Strategies proposed by Oxford (1990) and the Overlapping Waves Theory by Siegler (1996) will be applied to identify the cognitive development of the students. This cognitive analysis is based on creating a Universally Designed educational environment which will accommodate individuals with a wide range of abilities and disabilities by reducing barriers (Rose, Hasselbring, Stahi, & Zabala, 2005). Based on this principle, the investigation used Assistive Technologies to support college students‟ English Language development focusing on vocabulary. This strategy could provide a link for struggling students by minimizing frustrations while providing constant feedback (Sorrell, Bell & McCallum, 2007). The objectives of this research are to: a) develop strategy support through the use of an Assistive Technology that introduce students to key programs which will familiarize them with the features of the Read & Write Gold program, and b) to identify relationships between student strategy choices (features or prior strategies) and intervention effectiveness. Technological supports need to be researched further too continually grow and develop programs to meet the current needs of students and employers alike.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".