Exploring opportunities for language immersion in the posthuman spectrum: lessons learned from digital agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Technologically-enhanced language education has shifted from computer-assisted language learning (CALL) to mobile-assisted language learning (MALL), including the use of conversational digital agents, and more recently, towards the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) large language model (LLM) programmes for language learning purposes. This paper aims to explore the interplay between such posthuman communication and posthumanist applied linguistics, and between digital agents and human agency in response to the increasing permeation of AI in life and learning. Design/methodology/approach A core team of four researchers investigated how digital agents could be leveraged to support immersive target language learning and practice, focusing specifically on the conversational AI that pervaded digitally-mediated communication prior to the release of generative AI. Each researcher engaged in a digital autoethnography using conversational agents found in the digital wilds to learn a target second language via digital immersion. Findings Through qualitative data analysis of autoethnographic narratives using NVIVO, four key thematic codes characterizing the learning journeys emerged: context, language learning, posthuman engagement and technological parameters. The posthuman learning experiences conflicted with the multisensory, embodied and embedded ethos of posthumanist applied linguistics, indicating that informed human pedagogical agency must crucially be exercised to benefit from the learning potential of posthuman agents. Interactions with conversational agents did provide small-scale, just-in-time learning opportunities, but these fell short of immersive learning. Originality/value The methodology and findings offer a unique and valuable lens on the language learning potential of emerging LLM-based generative agents that are rapidly infusing conversational practices.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".