Language awareness in a content-based language programme
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
A widely accepted theoretical premise in second language acquisition holds that learners must notice language form in order to learn it. This premise provides support for language instruction that integrates attention to language form with attention to content. Empirical research has shown this combination to be effective; however, little research has investigated how learners attend to form in content-based language contexts. This study was carried out as part of a larger research project investigating the effect and effectiveness of form-focused instruction (FFI) in a content-based language programme. The project used a pre-test/post-test/delayed post-test design to measure language and content outcomes and a retrospective recall protocol to investigate learner attention to language and content. This paper reports on the findings of the recall protocol and the relationship between learner attention and language outcomes. Analysis of the recall data indicated that the participants were able to identify the focus of the instruction they received in reference to content or language. However, no relationship between awareness of language and language outcomes was found. The findings are discussed in the context of content-based language instruction and FFI and the possible role of orientation and depth of processing in learner attention and awareness.
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) | 0.002 | 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