MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613357489

Creating Confidence: Teachers’ Strategies to Foster Self-Efficacy in Secondary ELLs

2017· article· en· W2613357489 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lindsey Mihoren

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSecond Language Learning and Teaching
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEllMathematics educationPedagogyPsychologyTeaching method
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As Canada continues to welcome immigrants from around the world, public school systems are challenged to provide academic and social supports to students whose first language is not English. The purpose of this study was to examine how a small sample of secondary educators is intentionally working to support the development of self-efficacy in ELLs, including the potential challenges ELL educators face. Data was collected using semi-structured interviews with two ELL instructors with ten or more years of experience working with ELLs in Ontario public secondary schools. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed by the researcher. The results of this qualitative study suggest that the educator’s role in supporting these students extends far beyond the classroom and is dependant on establishing rapport with students through creating and participating in community building inside and outside of the classroom. In addition, the study identified large class sizes of mixed skill levels and improper initial placement of students within the Ontario ESL program as reported challenges to teachers’ efforts to foster students’ self-efficacy.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace (University of Toronto)Same topicSecond Language Learning and TeachingFrench-language works237,207