MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025360872 · doi:10.1017/s0261444820000130

Practitioners respond to Suzanne Graham's ‘Research into practice: Listening strategies in an instructed classroom setting’. (2017)

2020· article· en· W3025360872 on OpenAlex
Mark McAndrews

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage Teaching · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive listeningArgument (complex analysis)PsychologyContext (archaeology)PedagogyLinguisticsMathematics educationCommunicationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In her 2017 article ‘Research into practice: Listening strategies in an instructed classroom setting,’ Suzanne Graham outlines ways that research-derived principles of listening instruction have (not) been adopted in second language (L2) classrooms. She organizes her argument into three categories, discussing research findings that have not been well applied, those that have been over-applied, and areas she views as holding good potential for application. In this short response, I compare Graham's conclusions about the extent of research adoption to my own experiences as a language teacher and make additional comments about the application of those research findings in the context of post-secondary L2 English instruction.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.330 · 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