Innovating with etandem language learning in a Quebec high school class: an activity theory perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Most research on tandem language learning (TLL) has involved university contexts . To contribute to the paucity of research in school settings, this study focuses on a high school teacher’s attempt at setting up an ESL-FSL exchange in a Canadian intranational context. To better understand the complexity of innovation, the process is analyzed through the lens of Activity Theory (AT).Methodology The study was designed as an action research project. To facilitate triangulation, three types of data were collected: 1. student questionnaires, 2. interviews with the teacher and six case study students, and 3. texts written by the case study students. The teacher reviewed the manuscript.Findings In line with AT, findings focused on how the teacher oriented to the TLL project and the tensions which arose during its implementation. Tensions were located both within the ESL activity system and between the ESL-FSL activity systems.Originality/Value To our knowledge, this study is the first to analyze the complexity of implementing TLL exchanges from an AT perspective. The study highlights how competing discourses within language teaching (multivocality) inhibited the implementation of the TLL project and foregrounds the role of transformative agency in regard to the teacher.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".