Developing Technological Capacity in EAL Learning Environments: The Teacher Candidate Experience
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
Abstract: English as an Additional Language and technology are both areas that are underserved in teacher education programs. In an attempt to begin EAL and technology development sooner a volunteer group from the (Name) engaged in a program to create an educational technology experience in an EAL high school classroom. The opportunities for digital learning technologies to support teachers and learners are endless (Borko, Whitcomb and Liston, 2009). Teacher education programs continue to promote the integration of new technologies into training in Universities (Albion, 2008) and in the K- 12 school environment (Dawson, 2006) but developing high levels of competency in pre-service teachers has been difficult. Another issue is that students in Canadian teacher preparation programs are unlikely to have the opportunity to develop skills in EAL (Cummins, Mirza & Stille, 2012; Mistry & Sood, 2010). Also, students in English as an Additional Language need exposure to technologies to help support their academic success and integrate into new cultures. A key aspect of learning to be a successful teacher involves the students learning in the settings in which they will teach Smarkola (2007) This paper uses an action research approach to examine the experiences of pre-service teachers application of technology in an English as an Additional Language high school classroom.
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 | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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