DO SECONDARY SECOND LANGUAGE STUDENTS BENEFIT FROM E-MAIL TANDEM PARTNER FEEDBACK?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on a study that investigated the degree to which secondary second language students used the feedback provided by their tandem partners. A group of French-speaking ESL students in a secondary school in Quebec communicated with a group of English-speaking FSL students in a secondary school in Ontario by e-mail. Following the principles of online tandem learning (Brammerts, 1996 [1]; Little et al., 1999 [2]), students were asked to use their first language (L1) and second language (L2) in equal proportion and to correct each other’s mistakes. The impact of the feedback provided by the tandem partners on the students’ revisions was measured by comparing the first drafts of the reports, the feedback provided by their tandem partners, and the revised drafts of their reports, and from answers to the end-of-project questionnaire. Additional qualitative data were obtained from personal interviews with selected students and from personal e-mail communication with the ESL and FSL teachers. The findings revealed that a high percentage of students incorporated their partners’ corrections within their work. In addition, it was found that the nature of the task (i.e., revising their reports using their tandem partners’ feedback) promoted the incorporation of tandem partner feedback.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".