Collaborative writing in mixed classes: What do heritage and second language learners think?
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
Abstract This study investigates heritage language (HL) and second language (L2) learners' attitudes and perceptions of their mixed HL–L2 interactions. As part of the activities of a 10‐week course, eight Spanish HL learners and 10 L2 learners worked in mixed dyads to complete a series of collaborative writing tasks designed to leverage their complementary strengths and weaknesses. A beginning‐of‐quarter and an end‐of‐quarter questionnaire were administered. Learners' responses revealed that HL and L2 learners alike had a highly positive experience that changed their initial reluctance toward collaborative writing. Most learners noticed language gains and an improvement in their writing skills. Yet both HL and L2 participants agreed that L2 learners, who were generally perceived as less proficient, benefited more. HL learners also reported affective benefits from their role as linguistic and cultural experts. Although some challenges were noticed, overall, findings support the use of collaborative writing tasks in mixed classes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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