MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003851243 · doi:10.3138/cmlr.58.3.402

Teacher Use of Learners' Native Language in the Foreign Language Classroom

2002· article· en· W2003851243 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeanne Rolin-Ianziti, Siobhan Brownlie

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVocabularyGrammarForeign languageSentenceLinguisticsPsychologyExploratory researchFirst languageComputer scienceContext (archaeology)English as a foreign languageMathematics educationNatural language processingSociologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reports on an exploratory study into the use of students' native language (NL) by teachers in the foreign language (FL) classroom. The project was undertaken by four teachers of beginner French at the University of Queensland. The teachers' aim was to investigate the use of NL in a context which actively promotes an immersion approach to FL teaching. The audio recordings of the teachers' speech were transcribed to provide data for estimating the amount of NL, and for analyzing the various instances of NL use. The study indicates that the activity type is a significant variable affecting NL amount. It also isolates two strategic uses of NL, translating FL words into NL, and contrasting NL and FL forms, both of which involve intrasentential code switching with NL words embedded in an FL sentence. The study suggests that these strategies may facilitate acquisition during immersion in FL, but experimental research is needed to test the hypothesis that translation and contrast facilitate learning of FL vocabulary and grammar.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations132
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantesSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207