An Exploration of L2 Teachers’ Use of Pedagogical Interventions Devised to Draw L2 Learners’ Attention to Form
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This descriptive observational study aimed at exploring the form‐focused instruction (FFI) interventions used by four French and four English as‐a‐second‐language high school teachers to draw their students’ attention to form. With the help of an Intervention‐on‐Form(s)‐Observation Scheme (IFOS) developed and tested for this purpose, each FFI intervention observed during 60 hours of video‐recorded class time was coded according to its type (e.g., corrective feedback, explanation, enhancement, form‐oriented exercises) and its related characteristics (e.g., linguistic focus, interactional pattern, source of the intervention). The results show that grammar‐oriented interventions are rather frequent in these second‐language classes and that some differences in preferences of intervention types exist in the two contexts. Although FFI interventions are more frequent in the English classes observed, the overall time spent on FFI is significantly higher in the French classes. The reasons for this as well as details regarding the characteristics of the interventions coded through the use of the IFOS will be 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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 it