First and second language knowledge in the language classroom
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 feasibility study investigated how language instruction can be designed to help learners build on first language (L1) knowledge in acquiring a new language. It seems likely that learners will benefit from activities that draw their attention to features of their L1, but attempts to bridge the first and second language (L2) curricula often break down because the teachers typically work in isolation and are uncertain how to proceed. We attempted to address these problems by designing a series of cross-linguistic awareness (CLA) activities to be implemented on a trial basis with 48 young francophone learners of English (age 9—10 years) at a school in Montreal, Quebec. We observed language instruction in their French (L1) classes and identified features and themes that lent themselves to reinvestment in their English (L2) classes. Then 11 CLA teaching packages were developed and piloted with in an intensive year-long English as a second language (ESL) program. Classroom observations, interviews with both L1 and L2 teachers, and learner journal responses indicated that the activities were well received and that CLA instruction can usefully address a wide variety of linguistic features. Problems highlighted by the study are discussed; we also outline new research that will explore whether this promising experimental pedagogy leads to distinct language learning benefits.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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