MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3055732854 · doi:10.5539/elt.v13n9p30

Pre-service Teachers’ Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI) on Bilingualism: Getting Insights to Developing Knowledge

2020· article· en· W3055732854 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jian Liu, David Rutledge

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPedagogyNeuroscience of multilingualismLanguage acquisitionMathematics educationBilingual education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of pre-service teacher (PST) programs is to provide students with pragmatic working experience and pedagogy that they need for becoming eligible teachers. In a bilingual classroom, however, some perspectives about second language learning (SLL) held by PSTs are too arbitrary. To assist PSTs in developing concepts of second language acquisition as related to educational settings and to cultivate PSTs’ burgeoning educational beliefs, this study was conducted using the Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory (BALLI). Seventeen PSTs who were enrolled in a university located along the southern U.S. border provided data for the present study. Three of the 27 belief statements included in the BALLI survey were critically analyzed. This critical analysis explored why certain PSTs’ beliefs about second language learning diverged from social reality at schools. Based on the analysis and results from our findings, suggestions about how to improve the bilingual education for PSTs are provided.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207