Classroom interaction in one-way, two-way, and indigenous immersion contexts
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
How much and what kinds of classroom interaction best promote language and content learning in different immersion contexts? We review trends and major concerns for classroom interaction research in three language immersion contexts: two-way immersion, one-way immersion, and indigenous language immersion. Much of the research in two-way immersion contexts has focused on issues of equity in interaction. Research in one-way immersion contexts has primarily attempted to understand what kinds of interaction are most effective for L2 development, and how to teach students to interact in these ways. Driven by the urgency that accompanies efforts at language and culture revitalization, indigenous immersion research centers on the role of culture and community norms in classroom interaction. Despite the fact that research in these three contexts has focused on rather different issues, we draw cross-context conclusions, arguing that findings from these settings can and should inform each other.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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