MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2252878279 · doi:10.5539/elt.v9n2p148

Stakeholder Perspectives on CLIL in a Monolingual Context

2016· article· en· W2252878279 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nina Karen Lancaster

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSecond Language Learning and Teaching
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)PsychologyStakeholderPedagogyContext (archaeology)PerceptionCommunicative competenceClass (philosophy)Linguistic competencePresentation (obstetrics)Mathematics educationLinguisticsPolitical scienceGeographyPublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicSecond Language Learning and TeachingFrench-language works237,207