Stakeholder Perspectives on CLIL in a Monolingual Context
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
<p>This article documents the findings of a study concerning the perspectives on Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in the monolingual context of Jaén. The research has involved the design, validation and administration of two sets of questionnaires to 745 informants (692 students and 53 teachers) within eight secondary schools with a view to identifying student and teacher attitudes towards Andalusian CLIL in the province of Jaén. Perceptions are outlined in terms of students’ use, competence and development of English in class; methodology; materials and resources and ICT; evaluation; teachers’ use, competence and development of English in class; teacher training; mobility; improvement and motivation towards English; and coordination and organisation. The article begins with an overview of prior research, subsequently reports on the research design of the study and concludes with the presentation of the main findings of the investigation. An extensive evaluation of stakeholder perspectives on CLIL in the province of Jaén reveals a predominantly positive outlook on behalf of the student and teacher cohorts with regard to the implementation of a bilingual programme within the Andalusian region of Spain.</p>
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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