MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415513566 · doi:10.1080/0161956x.2025.2562783

The Role of Linguistic Course Concentration in Secondary English Learners’ Attainment: Intersections of School Context and Student Characteristics

2025· article· en· W4415513566 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kristin E. Black, Ben Le, Ramy Abbady, Lindsay Romano, Coleen D. Carlson, Jeremy Miciak, David J. Francis, Michael J. Kieffer

Bibliographic record

VenuePeabody Journal of Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSecond Language Learning and Teaching
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Education SciencesYork UniversityNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of HoustonAssociation for Psychological ScienceAmerican Educational Research Association
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Course (navigation)Secondary educationContext effectTeaching method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Course-level concentration of English learners (ELs), or the clustering of ELs into courses away from non-ELs, is an underexamined component of curricular tracking at the secondary level. Using data from three ninth grade cohorts (2013–2015) in the New York City Public Schools (NYCPS), as well as data from the American Community Survey and National Student Clearinghouse, this study examines the relationship between course concentration of high school ELs—as measured by the percent of ELs in content courses—and four key outcomes: four- and six-year high school graduation, and immediate and extended enrollment in college. Guided by an ecological framework, we distinguished between schools’ general tendency to concentrate ELs into separate courses and the individual students’ experiences of relative concentration within their schools. We estimated the role of both components of course concentration in two different types of high schools: comprehensive schools and newcomer-serving schools. We found that both components had significant negative associations with high school graduation and college enrollment, though with some notable differences by subgroup and school type. Our findings challenge the common practice of grouping ELs together for instruction but also point to important variations in how course concentration might differentially shape attainment outcomes in different high school contexts.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeabody Journal of EducationSame topicSecond Language Learning and TeachingFrench-language works237,207