MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Amount, Purpose, and Reasons for Using L1 in L2 Classrooms

2009· article· en· W2081513394 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueForeign Language Annals · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaLangara College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermanConversationPsychologyForeign languageRecallMathematics educationAudio equipmentTeaching methodLanguage proficiencyLinguisticsPedagogyCommunicationCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: This study examined the amount, the purposes, and the reasons why L1 is used in L2 classrooms. Data consist of video and audio recording of samples of two instructors' L2 classes over the course of a 12‐week semester in two second‐year German conversation university courses, instructor interviews, and stimulated recall sessions. Results revealed that the instructors used L1 quite frequently in their classrooms and that they did it for many reasons and purposes. They also believed that L1 should be used in L2 classrooms and that its use facilitates L2 learning. Findings provide evidence that despite disagreement on the use of L1 among L2 researchers, these instructors of German as a foreign language used L1 in their classrooms for important instructional purposes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.259 · 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