To What Extent Do Popular ESL Textbooks Incorporate Oral Fluency and Pragmatic Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined several popular integrated skills textbooks used in Language Instruc- tion for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) and English as a second language (ESL) programs for pragmatics and oral fluency activities. Although many instructors use other resources to supplement classroom instruction, the textbook is still the backbone of many language courses. We wanted to know to what extent textbooks focus on pragmatics and oral fluency, as well as the range of activities featured in each. In light of the recent federal evaluation of LINC programs in Canada, which indicated extremely limited improvement in speaking and listening skills as a result of language instruction, it is important to know which textbooks offer the best opportunities for pragmatics and fluency development. We determined that very few textbook series are consistent in their inclusion of pragmatic content in terms of scope, quality, and quantity. As might be expected, oral fluency is not a major focus in integrated skills texts; however, those activities that are intended to enhance fluency development could easily be improved by an instructor.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".