A Case Study on Multi-level Language Ability Groupings in an ESL Secondary School Classroom: Are We Making the Right Choices?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research examines a multi-level language ability ESL secondary school classroom in relation to Lave and Wenger’s (1991) community of practice and Dörnyei and Ottó’s (1998) L2 motivation conceptual frameworks. Both qualitative and quantitative methodologies were employed. Case study data were collected through monthly interviews, semi-monthly observations, and monthly written journals over 3 months in Toronto from 6 participants (5 students and 1 teacher). Also, students who had been in Canada 5 years or less, and ESL teachers were invited to complete an on-line questionnaire. Results indicate that the multi-level classroom positively and negatively impacts participation and motivation. Participants define the most striking factor to impact participation and motivation as themselves; this links the two conceptual frameworks because “self-regulation” in the Actional Phase (Dörnyei & Ottó, 1998) can be better understood by legitimate peripheral participation or the ability to “imagine” and “align” oneself (Lave & Wenger, 1991). In this multi-level classroom, self-regulation is when students actively imagine possible selves who are aligned with their family or peer goals, or when faced with disengagement, students envision new roles for themselves in the classroom to overcome barriers and realign themselves with shared family or peer goals. In these cases, alignment drives imagination; however, students also use imagination to create alignment. When lower level learners see advanced students as possible selves, they feel hope for their future. Similarly, advanced learners recall their past selves when seeing their lower level peers and feel empathy for them. This interaction cements student alignment and sets a context conducive to cooperative learning which enhances students’ abilities to remain aligned with their families. Overall, this research highlights the interplay of imagination and alignment which impacts student identity. Moreover, it reveals that one aspect of the Post-actional Phase in Dörnyei and Ottó’s (1998) model, “self-concept beliefs,” can be enhanced by the notion of identity in Lave and Wenger’s (1991) framework. Finally, these findings could serve to change policy and improve programming and serve as an archive for future research.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".