MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Listening to Learn versus Learning to Listen

2018· other· en· W2911868052 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching · 2018
Typeother
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive listeningInformational listeningMeaning (existential)PsychologyListening comprehensionTask (project management)Reflective listeningAppreciative listeningMetacognitionProcess (computing)Mathematics educationComputer scienceCommunicationCognitionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This entry will clarify the difference between listening to learn and learning to listen. Listening to learn focuses on the development of listeners' ability to complete meaning‐focused tasks as well as their use of language knowledge and listening texts for learning. On the other hand, learning to listen addresses the process of listening, that is, how students arrived at comprehension. This entry will then explore the associated research literature, illustrated with both types of listening activities. Metacognitive instruction is exemplified through process‐based instruction and an alternative framework for strategy instruction is presented. Finally, a range of authentic task‐types are delineated, along with a pedagogical framework regarding how to use technology for learning.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.622
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.246 · 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