MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385308790 · doi:10.3390/educsci13080765

Promoting Positive Emotions during the Emergency Remote Teaching of English for Academic Purposes: The Unexpected Role of the Constructionist Approach

2023· article· en· W4385308790 on OpenAlexaff
Lucas Kohnke, Dennis Foung

Bibliographic record

VenueEducation Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCommunication in Education and Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStrict constructionismPsychologyConstructionismInterviewFacilitationMathematics educationPedagogyDevelopmental psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the significant research on the effectiveness and challenges of emergency remote teaching (ERT) during the global COVID-19 pandemic, few studies have focused on the systematic facilitation of positive emotions by classroom teachers. This study aimed to identify the strategies that teachers of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) used during the ERT period, by interviewing 18 university English teachers in Hong Kong. Our results suggest that one traditional learning theory, the constructionist approach, played an unexpectedly important role in facilitating positive student emotions, as well as encouraging learning. Cognitively demanding tasks helped divert students’ attention away from the negative emotions they faced and towards their learning. Interactions also played an essential role in helping students learn and in reducing negative emotions. These results shed light on the significance of positive emotions in an online or ERT environment, with significant implications for university teachers who want their teaching to systematically promote positive emotions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.368 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducation SciencesSame topicCommunication in Education and HealthcareFrench-language works237,207