Child-to-child interaction and corrective feedback during eTandem ESL–FSL chat exchanges
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 study examined the role of corrective feedback in the context of an English as a second language (ESL) and French as a second language (FSL) eTandem chat exchange involving Grade 6 students. The students were enrolled in intensive programs in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario and had an elementary to low- intermediate level of language proficiency. Tasks were completed on a weekly basis over a 9-week period. Six tasks completed by 13 pairs were retained for analysis. The analysis showed that the ESL and FSL students provided three types of feedback: explicit feedback, recasts, and negotiation of form. Unlike the study by Morris (2005), which involved Grade 5 second language (L2) Spanish students, the preference in this study was for explicit feedback. This difference was attributed to the tandem approach which emphasizes training in how to give feedback as well as school culture. Differences between the amount of feedback provided during the ESL and FSL exchanges were also observed. Here, too, the influence of school culture appears to have been a factor. The ESL students appeared to be more positively oriented to L2 learning, reflected in a higher appreciation of the tandem learning exchange. Implications for teaching and the need of future research are discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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