Investigating EAP Teachers’ Use and Perceptions of Gesture in General and in Corrective Feedback Episodes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This exploratory study examined the spontaneous use of gestures occurring in general as well as the corrective behaviour of two English for academic purposes (EAP) teachers at a Canadian university. Data were collected by way of an interview, lesson observation, and a stimulated recall session. Prior to the observation, each teacher was interviewed to identify practices (as they relate to gesture and CF) they found effective and employed regularly in their teaching. After the lesson, the teachers watched extracts from their lessons to reflect on the use of gestures in general and in CF episodes specifically, and to explain the motivations and/or reasons behind their choices. Results indicate that the EAP teachers actively used gestures, with many occurring alongside CF moves. They were also strategic in the amount and types of both CF and gesture they used. Cette étude exploratoire a examiné l’utilisation spontanée de gestes qui se produit en général ainsi que dans le cadre de comportement correctif chez deux enseignants d’anglais académique (EAP) d’une université canadienne. Des données ont été recueillies au moyen d’entrevues, d’observation de cours et d’une session de rappel stimulé. Avant de procéder à l’observation, chaque enseignant a fait l’objet d’une entrevue pour identifier les pratiques (en ce qu’elles avaient trait à la gestuelle et à la rétroaction corrective) qu’ils trouvaient utiles et employaient régulièrement quand ils enseignent. Après la leçon, les enseignants ont visionné des extraits de leur leçon afin de réfléchir à l’utilisation de gestes en général et lors de la rétroaction corrective en particulier, ainsi que pour expliquer les motivations et/ou les raisons qui sous-tendaient leurs choix. Les résultats indiquent que les enseignants d’EAP utilisaient la gestuelle de façon active, dont une grande partie se produisait en même temps que les gestes de rétroaction corrective. La quantité et le type de gestuelle et de rétroaction corrective étaient utilisés de façon stratégique.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".