Foreign Language Exposure in Knowledge-Building Forums Using English as a Foreign Language
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines whether the students with higher levels of language and cultural awareness relating to the L2 share this knowledge with their peers in collaborative writing tasks when participating in the Knowledge Building International Project (KBIP). The study was conducted in two Spanish classrooms, where the participants were bilingual in both Catalan and Spanish. A pre-questionnaire was used to determine the level of exposure to English language and English culture and the students were scored on their responses and then divided into three groups: low-, medium-, and high-level exposure to English. A one-way ANOVA was used to determine whether exposure to English language and culture outside of the classroom would influence pre-test scores. There is an interaction effect between language and cultural exposure and the pre-test scores (F = 5.17). Upon the conclusion of the collaborative writing task, a one-way ANOVA was used to determine whether there was an interaction effect between language and cultural exposure and the post-test scores (F = 4.47). The student scores increased at the same rate across the groups. This indicates that the students did not share their knowledge of the English language and culture with their peers in this online writing task.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".