MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024837505 · doi:10.29140/mle.v1n1.261

Language teaching and settlement for newcomers in the digital age: A blended learning research project

2020· article· en· W3024837505 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jill Cummings, Matthias Stürm, Augusta Avram

Bibliographic record

VenueMigration and Language Education · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSecond Language Learning and Teaching
Canadian institutionsVancouver Community CollegeSimon Fraser UniversityYorkville University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlended learningSettlement (finance)Language acquisitionClass (philosophy)CitizenshipPedagogyComputer scienceImmigrationMathematics educationSociologyEducational technologyPsychologyArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Blended Learning (BL) in English language learning programs in Canada is defined as the combination of f2f learning with instructor-facilitated use by students of online activities and resources that complement the in-class teaching (Kennell & Moriarty, 2014). Blended Learning is increasingly in demand by students, teachers, and programs (Garrison & Vaughan, 2008), particularly in the Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) program, the English language and settlement program provided by Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) in Canada (Kennell & Moriarty, 2014). This article explains the findings of a demonstration research project regarding the effects of blended learning in LINC for students, instructors, and the program. The blended approach shows promise for enhancing English language learning and access to LINC classes for newcomers to Canada via technologies important in our digital age. The research findings here regarding the effects of BL in LINC are important in light of the need to enhance accessibility to English language learning for newcomers to Canada and the paucity of research related to BL for English language learning and settlement needs (Kennell & Moriarty, 2014; Lawrence, 2014).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.218
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMigration and Language EducationSame topicSecond Language Learning and TeachingFrench-language works237,207