Students' and instructors' attitudes toward the use of CALL in foreign language teaching and learning
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 study examines the effects of educational technologies on the attitudes of both the instructors and the students. The results indicate that there is a discrepancy between the students' awareness of the instructors' goals for using new technologies and the importance instructors placed on computer assisted language learning (CALL). The data also indicate a disparity between the students' reported use of CALL and instructors' perceptions of students' use of CALL, as well as between the types of technologies instructors thought were useful for students' success and those that students thought were useful for their own success. A comparison of students' log-in frequencies and the average time they spent on CALL activities per week, with the instructors' daily journals for each class indicated that instructors' behaviour had an effect on students' patterns of CALL use. As very few studies have made a comparison between students' attitudes and instructors' perceptions of the use of educational technologies, this study helps to fill a gap in the literature and leads to a better understanding of the use of CALL in second language teaching.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 it