MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008625027 · doi:10.18806/tesl.v36i3.1319

Digital Multimodal Composition and Second Language Teacher Knowledge

2019· article· en· W3008625027 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTESL Canada Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSecond Language Learning and Teaching
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComposition (language)PedagogyPsychologyMathematics educationSociologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Before second language writing (SLW) teachers’ digital practices can be supported, their needs must first be understood. To accomplish effective technology-enhanced instruction, SLW teachers must blend their knowledge of composition theory, second language acquisition, and multimodal composition technologies. However, many teachers struggle to do this, which highlights the need for research addressing the cognitive aspects that influence digital instruction. This case study reports on an investigation of three in-service university SLW teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) during a digital reflective portfolio module. Data from an online survey, instructional content, classroom observations, and semistructured interviews were triangulated to uncover the nature of SLW teachers’ TPACK, including which factors supported and constrained their use of technology. Findings suggest that pedagogical content knowledge played a dominant role in how the teachers used technology. The teachers’ TPACK was enhanced by professional beliefs about the importance of multimodality and contextual factors involving institutional support and communities of practice. However, it was constrained by limited self-efficacy and pedagogical beliefs concerning the influence of technology on student learning and student engagement. This study contributes to a growing body of research on how to support language teachers in their digitally mediated practices. Avant de pouvoir soutenir les pratiques numériques des enseignantes et enseignants d’expression écrite en langue seconde (SLW), il faut commencer par en comprendre les besoins. Pour être à même de dispenser efficacement un enseignement enrichi par la technologie, les enseignantes et enseignants d’expression écrite en langue seconde doivent amalgamer leurs connaissances dans les domaines de la théorie de la composition, de l’acquisition d’une langue seconde et des technologies de composition multimodale. Beaucoup d’enseignantes et d’enseignants, toutefois, arrivent mal à le faire, ce qui souligne le besoin de recherches sur les facteurs cognitifs qui ont une incidence sur l’enseignement numérique. La présente étude de cas fait état de recherches menées auprès de trois enseignants (un homme et deux femmes) d’expression écrite en langue seconde en cours de service au niveau universitaire dans le cadre TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge). Des données issues d’un sondage en ligne, un contenu pédagogique, des observations faites en salle de classe et des entrevues semi-structurées ont été triangulés pour lever le voile sur la nature des connaissances des enseignantes et enseignants d’expression écrite en langue seconde dans le cadre TPACK, y compris la question de savoir quels facteurs soutiennent ou restreignent leur recours à la technologie. Les constatations suggèrent que la connaissance du contenu pédagogique joue un rôle prépondérant dans la façon dont les enseignantes et enseignants utilisent la technologie. Leurs connaissances sont par ailleurs renforcées par des convictions professionnelles concernant l’importance de l’intermodalité ainsi que par des facteurs contextuels impliquant le soutien institutionnel et les communautés de pratique. Elles se sont toutefois avérées limitées par l’auto-efficacité réduite des enseignantes et enseignants et leurs croyances pédagogiques relativement à l’influence de la technologie sur l’apprentissage et l’engagement des étudiantes et étudiants. Cette étude s’ajoute à un corpus croissant de recherches sur la façon de soutenir les professeurs de langue dans leurs pratiques numériques.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.194 · 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