The development of advanced learner oral proficiency using iPads
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
Franziska Lys, Northwestern University In this study, I investigate the use and integration of iPads in an advanced German conversation class. In particular, I am interested in analyzing how students learn with this new technology and how it affects the development of their oral proficiency level. Overall, my results suggest that iPads are well suited to practice listening and speaking proficiency at advanced levels, as learners were engaged in meaningful, purposeful, and goal-directed discourse. The learner-centered, task-based language learning approach using iPads facilitated interactions and provided scaffolded assistance. On average, students spent twenty-four minutes a week in video conversations on Face-Time alone. In addition, the required weekly recordings increased from a little over one minute at the beginning of the quarter to more than seven minutes for the last assignment. Although task complexity and linguistic complexity increased over the course of the quarter, students still felt comfortable and competent enough to produce increasingly longer speech samples.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it