Teachers’ Stances on Cell Phones in the ESL Classroom: Toward a “Theoretical” Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the ongoing and constantly expanding discussion surrounding cell phones in the classroom, a theoretical complement to the practical side of the issue is gener- ally lacking. This is perhaps understandable. Many teachers are still trying to deal with the simple presence of cell phones in the class, and managing a classroom in which the presence and use of cell phones is a reality takes precedence over chart- ing some sort of theoretical framework. Yet perhaps it is now time to step back and consider such a framework. I offer just such a consideration, as well as some remarks about which theoretical positions might be most advisable in specific classroom contexts.Au débat portant sur les téléphones cellulaires en salle de classe, toujours actuel et s’élargissant sans cesse, il manque souvent une composante théorique pour venir compléter le côté pratique. Plusieurs enseignants tentent encore de composer avec la simple présence des téléphones cellulaires en classe, alors la gestion d’une classe où on les utilise prend le dessus sur la planification d’un cadre théorique. Il est peut-être temps, toutefois, de prendre un certain recul et de considérer un tel cadre. J’offre une telle proposition ainsi que certaines remarques par rapport aux positions théoriques les plus recommandables dans des contextes pédagogiques particuliers.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".