The Quantity and Quality of Language Practice in Typical Interactive Pair/Group Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports on a study examining the language practice opportunities that occurred during a range of paired and small group interactive tasks in an intensive English as a Second Language (ESL) class of francophone Grade 6 students. The analysis focussed on the opportunities the tasks provided for the use of two complex and challenging forms (the simple past and the possessive determiners his/her) by these learners. We examined both the quantity and the quality of the contexts for the two target forms within the tasks, and whether particular task types or task features were associated with more or richer practice for the forms.Cet article fait rapport d’une étude qui examine les occasions de pratiquer la langue qui se sont présentées pendant diverses tâches interactives accomplies en petits groupes dans un cours intensif d’anglais langue seconde avec des étudiants francophones en 6e année. L’analyse a porté sur les occasions présentées aux apprenant pendant les tâches pour employer deux formes complexes et difficiles (le passé simple et les déterminants possessifs « his » et « hers »). Nous avons examiné tant la quantité que la qualité des contextes pour les deux formes ciblées, ainsi que les différentes sortes de tâches pour déterminer si elles étaient liées à un emploi plus riche ou fréquent des formes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".