Learner personas and the effects of instructional scaffolding on working behaviour and linguistic performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter examines data-driven learner personas and instructional scaffolding in the form of preemptive feedback in an ICALL environment. Ninety-three beginner learners of L2 German participated in a study by performing a sentence completion task as part of their regular course assignments throughout a semester. On the basis of their access to help throughout the study, participants were classified into three distinctive learner profiles, or personas: No Help, Sporadic Help, and Frequent Help personas. The study then investigated the effects of access to different amounts of help on the learners’ working behaviour and linguistic performance. Study results indicate that the three learner personas showed significant differences in their working behaviour and linguistic performance, but by investigating the effects of the instructional scaffolding the CALL system provided, results suggest that two learner personas are sufficient to capture learners’ differences. With the ultimate goal of understanding learner personas and instructional scaffolding as it relates to learning outcomes, satisfaction and success in CALL, this paper provides possible explanations of these study results and suggests areas for future research and development.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".