MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990904593 · doi:10.20319/pijss.2019.53.142152

THE INFLUENCE OF PERSONALITY TYPE ON FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING: A CRITIQUE OF THE ACCELERATIVE INTEGRATED METHOD

2019· article· en· W2990904593 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mico Poonoosamy

Bibliographic record

VenuePEOPLE International Journal of Social Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyType (biology)PersonalityLinguisticsPsychoanalysisPhilosophyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Accelerative Integrated Method (AIM) is an inductive approach to second language acquisition. It was developed in Canada in 1999 by Wendy Maxwell to teach French in primary school. The AIM is currently being used to teach also English, Spanish, Mandarin and Japanese in over 10,000 primary and secondary schools in the world. The method privileges meaning-making and effective communication through a gesture approach. Maxwell claims that the AIM allows learners to reach high levels of communicative proficiency quickly, mainly through an emotional engagement with the language that they learn through dance, drama and creative writing. This paper critically evaluates the AIM; it focuses on how much it draws and impacts on the learner’s personality. It also explores the appropriateness of the AIM for secondary school students who have a higher cognitive developmental age than primary students for whom the AIM was originally designed. The discussion is informed by theories on second language acquisition, emotion and personality type. The paper concludes by making recommendations on learning and teaching methodologies that can challenge and successfully engage foreign language learners while also developing in them intercultural literacy.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.394 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEOPLE International Journal of Social SciencesSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207