Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is the 30th anniversary of the TESL Canada Journal, which was established in 1984 and has published a wide range of articles of relevance to the teaching of English as a second language since then.Now is, therefore, an appropriate time to express appreciation to all the journal staff members (editors, reviewers, and others without whom the journal would not be possible), as well as to all those who have made the journal such a success over the years.In this Spring 2014 issue, we continue to offer a range of articles of relevance to teacher educators, ESL instructors and learners, academics, researchers, and graduate students within and beyond Canada.Caroline Payant's research article on the incorporation of video-mediated reflective tasks in MATESOL programs will be of interest to teacher educators and the preservice and in-service teachers in their programs, native-and non-native speakers alike.Kent Lee and Leila Ranta's article on the use of Facebook by international students offers insights into the relationship between social media and Canadian and other post-secondary students; it also provides recommendations for teachers interested in integrating social media into their classroom instruction.Lijuan Ye's comparative genre study of spoken argumentation by Chinese and native speakers of English offers pedagogical implications and suggestions for future research in this area.An increasing number of ESL students use cellphones, both within and outside the classroom.Jeff Brown's Perspectives article provides a framework for reflection by instructors whose students use cellphones; it should be of interest to teachers in the ESL classrooms of both today and the future.Iryna Lenchuk and Amer Ahmed have responded to Brett Reynold's article, "Determiners, Feline Marsupials, and the Category-Function Distinction: A Critique of ELT Grammars," which was published in the Spring 2013 issue of the TESL Canada Journal.Brett Reynolds has kindly provided a reply to their article, and both articles are likely to generate thoughtful consideration of the complexities of grammar texts and English grammar pedagogy.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 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".