MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252354019 · doi:10.4018/9781599048956.ch010

A Computer-Based Reading Tutor for Young Language Learners

2011· book-chapter· en· W4252354019 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth Reeder, Jon Shapiro, Margaret Early, Maureen Kendrick, Jane Wakefield

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTUTORReading (process)Computer scienceMathematics educationLinguisticsPsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter describes the first year of research on the effectiveness of automated speech recognition (ASR) for ESL learners in the early school years. The aim was to learn how such technology can enhance literacy learning as an element of L2 development, using prototype research software entitled the Reading Tutor (RT). In addition to assessing learners’ gains in reading scores, the attitudinal dimension of speech recognition technology was investigated in an effort to explain the effectiveness of the software. We found that both heritage language (L1) and level of English proficiency were linked to students’ reading gains with the RT. Further, the RT was shown to be equally effective to a more time-intensive volunteer tutoring program. A positive affective impact of the RT was demonstrated in the interview data but not in two widely used attitudinal scales. An Appendix describes the technical implementation of the project.Request access from your librarian to read this chapter's full text.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.008

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningFrench-language works237,207