Teachers’ Self-Reported Classroom Practices Regarding Dictionary Use: The Role of Teachers’ Attitude and School Level
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study examined the self-reported practices of 300 elementary and high school Quebec teachers regarding dictionary use (paper and electronic) in the classroom as a function of teaching level and attitudes towards dictionaries. ANOVA results highlighted the diversity of teachers’ pedagogical intentions and students’ learning goals while consulting dictionaries. Results, however, revealed a traditional portrait of dictionary use (e.g., correcting spelling, finding a word definition). In addition, teaching levels did not significantly influence teaching content and activities, nor teachers’ perceptions of students’ goals while using a dictionary. Nonetheless, teachers’ attitudes towards dictionary use were found to significantly predict their classroom practices: those with a positive attitude reported a greater variety of pedagogical intentions (e.g., searching for synonyms) and reported more frequent and diversified dictionary-related activities. In sum, findings underscore the importance of training students and teachers in dictionary use to acquire (and teach) proper and diversified dictionary skills.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it