Pronunciation teaching practices in communicative second language classes
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
The objective of this research was to provide longitudinal, corpus-based evidence of actual teacher behaviour with respect to the teaching of second language (L2) pronunciation in a communicative language learning context. The data involved 40 hours of videotaped lessons from three experienced teachers recorded four times at 100-hour increments during the 400-hour programme for grade six (11- to 12-year-olds) francophone learners in Quebec, Canada. The videotaped lessons were initially transcribed and coded for individual pronunciation teaching episodes, then analysed in terms of their type, linguistic target and impact. Results demonstrated that pronunciation teaching episodes were infrequent (accounting for 10% of all language-related episodes), that pronunciation teaching targeted individual sounds (to the exclusion of other aspects of pronunciation) and that most pronunciation teaching episodes were not incorporated into lesson plans but instead involved various kinds of corrective feedback in respons...
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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