MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979285823 · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2019.4125

Avatar Kinect: Drama in the Virtual Classroom among L2 Learners of English

2019· article· en· W2979285823 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Bianchi, Byrad Yyelland, Joseph Yang, Molly McHarg

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Qualitative Report · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHearing Impairment and Communication
Canadian institutionsCollege of the North Atlantic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAvatarPsychologyQualitative researchGestureIdentity (music)EntertainmentPerceptionInterpersonal communicationExperiential learningComputer-mediated communicationSocial psychologyPedagogySociologyThe InternetComputer scienceWorld Wide WebVisual artsHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents a qualitative approach to exploring classroom behaviour using dramaturgical analysis of student interactions in relation with, and as mediated through, a gesture-based gaming software among L2 learners of English at two international branch campuses in the Arabian Gulf where face-to-face interactions between unrelated members of the opposite sex are generally discouraged. We investigated whether Avatar Kinect might provide a safe way for young males and females to interact while discussing social issues in a composition course. Data were collected through personal observation and survey. Five key themes emerged from the study. First, some participants chose to perform at front stage and others chose to remain back stage. Second, front stage participants chose avatars with gender and skin colour similar to themselves. Third, all participants appeared to be engaged in the interactive role play processes and with one another. Fourth, front stage actors appeared to act without inhibition. Finally, all participants expressed frustration with technology shortcomings.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.365 · 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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Qualitative ReportSame topicHearing Impairment and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207