Technology-Infused French: Foreign-Language Instruction for the Digital Age ed. by Carl Falsgraf
Bibliographic record
Abstract
would be better served and more challenged by exposure to authentic examples of current journalism. Furthermore, the text is unannotated, devoid of any pedagogical aids (boldface, italics, marginal notes, etc.) that would allow students to situate key vocabulary within the context of the article. The exercises, therefore, inevitably force students to spend an inordinate amount of time locating a particular word or expression in order to study the context. Some of the targeted vocabulary is far too specialized for the intermediate level—e.g., ruban à mesurer, papier de verre, rouleaux de papier peint (37). Another serious drawback is the lack of a glossary, an aid which would greatly facilitate the student’s reading, and would contribute toward the stated objective of the book. A baffling and detracting feature of the book is a table found in each unit contrasting “Constructions fautives à éviter” with “Constructions correctes à utiliser.” It may not be pedagogically effective to show two opposing expressions, side-by-side, and the practice could lead to confusion if the student remembers one of them, but not the other—e.g., “faire une decision” vs. “prendre une decision” (57). More problematic are such oppositions as être 20 ans and avoir 20 ans, être faim and avoir faim, être peur and avoir peur (35). One has to wonder about the efficacy and wisdom of recognizing such egregious errors in print. Downloader seems a strange substitute for télécharger, as does deleter for effacer (77), or cédule for emploi du temps (119). These pairings are puzzling, to say the least, though they are perhaps an attempted remedy against regional contamination of québécois French. Overall, most of the topics are timely and there is a good deal of useful vocabulary embedded in the reading. It is regrettable that the book was not designed with a little more care and with greater attention to the primary objective stated in the title. University of North Carolina, Greensboro David A. Fein FALSGRAF, CARL, ed. Technology-Infused French: Foreign-Language Instruction for the Digital Age. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education, 2011. ISBN 978-1-56484-282-4. Pp. 168. $24.95. This collection of essays and teaching units provides new insight into integrating technology, not for its own sake but to respond to both foreign language and technology standards, particularly the need to bring authentic situations and materials into the classroom. The first section contains three essays aimed at explaining the need to integrate technology, how technology relates to the ACTFL standards as well as the National Educational Technology Standards for Students (NETS*S), and how to conduct a performance assessment with the help of technology . In the first essay, Falsgraf reminds us that we are striving for authentic and contextualized communication in our classrooms. He then explains how society in general and teachers in particular tend to look at technology, concluding with the advice to use technology in such a seamless way that it becomes virtually invisible. Falsgraf is easy to read, to the point, with practical recommendations . In the second chapter, Kyle Ennis shows how NETS*S standards are integrated and intertwined with ACTFL standards. Ennis shows an awareness of the difficulties most teachers could experience, including the lack of access and time, limited familiarity with technology, and issues of reliability—thus requiring back-up plans. I found this awareness to be reassuring, ensuring that neither his essay nor the rest of the book felt overwhelming. In the third essay, Rita Oleksak Reviews 437 and Kathleen Riordan explain the performance assessment guidelines and how one school district brought about changes through teacher research and data collection. The presentations of the case study and the technologies were interesting and well done, although I found them quite discouraging for someone who works in a district with little money. However, I was also left with the desire to explore the resources mentioned by the authors. The second section offers four teaching units, two each from the ContentBased Language Teaching with Technology (CoBaLTT) Project and the Iowa State National K-12 Foreign Language Resource Center. The units target middleand high-school students at the beginner and intermediate levels. After an introduction to both...
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".