MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323365468 · doi:10.3390/educsci13030282

Developing Second Language Learners’ Sociolinguistic Competence: How Teachers’ CEFR-Related Professional Learning Aligns with Learner-Identified Needs

2023· article· en· W4323365468 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Katherine Rehner, Ivan Lasan

Bibliographic record

VenueEducation Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersMinistère de l’Éducation, Gouvernement de l’Ontario
KeywordsPedagogyCompetence (human resources)Communicative competencePsychologyCommunicative language teachingProfessional developmentLinguistic competenceMathematics educationLanguage educationLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores how teachers’ professional learning about the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) can re-orient their reported teaching practices to meet learner-identified sociolinguistic needs. To this end, the article first examines learners’ sociolinguistic needs by exploring the extent to which post-secondary French-as-a-second-language (FSL) learners, who completed their elementary and secondary schooling in Ontario, Canada, believe that they have successfully developed sociolinguistic competence in their target language. Specifically, it considers the learners’ assessment of their sociolinguistic abilities, the types of sociolinguistic skills they wish to develop further, a comparison with their actual sociolinguistic performance, and the ways in which they hope to develop the sociolinguistic skills they feel they lack. Second, the article explores Ontario elementary- and secondary-school FSL teachers’ reported focus on sociolinguistic competence in their teaching after having engaged in intensive and extensive CEFR-oriented professional learning. Specifically, it considers how the teachers’ professional learning influences the sociolinguistic relevance of their planning, classroom practice, and assessment and evaluation. The article concludes by considering whether the degree of “fit” between the learners’ self-identified needs and the teachers’ reports of their re-oriented practices is poised to improve the sociolinguistic outcomes of Ontario FSL learners.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducation SciencesSame topicMultilingual Education and PolicyFrench-language works237,207