'It Was Nice to See That Our Predictions Were Right': Developing Metacognition in L2 Listening Comprehension
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
Beginning-level core French students (Grades 4-6) completed listening comprehension tasks and reflective exercises, using instruments that engaged the students in prediction, evaluation, and other processes involved in listening. Following each task and accompanying exercises, students completed a questionnaire on the formative qualities of the activities and instruments. Results of this qualitative study suggest that use of these instruments helped sensitize students to the processes underlying L2 listening comprehension and tapped their metacognitive knowledge. Student comments evidenced a high degree of task and strategic knowledge and, to a lesser degree, person knowledge. Evidence from this study supports the argument that reflection on the processes of listening can help students develop metacognitive knowledge and, potentially, achieve greater success on these types of L2 listening tasks.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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