University level immersion: Students' perceptions of language activities
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
This article first presents a brief historical overview of immersion and a summary of research at the university level as well as the qualitative methodology used in our present research. It then describes the results of our study on immersion pedagogy at the post-secondary level: participants included 22 immersion students registered in four lower- and higher-level adjunct classes at the University of Ottawa in Canada, two in psychology and two in political sciences. Through focus group discussions these students described the different language activities and gave their perceptions of the usefulness of the activities for mastering both the content of the discipline course and the required language skills as well as how enjoyable they found them. Results reveal that students did mostly the same language activities based on reading, listening, writing, speaking, and vocabulary building. Students distinguished between the usefulness of an activity for mastering content course material and for learning the second language. They may or may not have enjoyed doing the activity regardless of how useful they found it. In general the lower-level students tended to be slightly more positive about their activities than the higher-level students.
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) | 0.009 | 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