MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415567677 · doi:10.5539/elt.v18n11p134

Corpus-informed Dynamic Assessment of Content and Language in a Business English Course

2025· article· W4415567677 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lidan Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational and Psychological Assessments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness EnglishDisciplineVocabularyEnglish for academic purposesVariety (cybernetics)Language acquisitionVocabulary developmentSociocultural evolutionLiteracyContent analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assessing both language and content has long been recognized as a central challenge in the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). This study investigates how corpus-informed Dynamic Assessment (DA) can capture learners’ development of subject knowledge and disciplinary literacy in an undergraduate Business English course taught through CLIL. Grounded in Vygotskian sociocultural theory, DA integrates assessment with mediation, enabling assessment to reveal both actual performance and developmental potential. Thirty-two undergraduate Business English majors participated in a one-semester quasi-experimental study conducted in the course “Comprehensive Business English.” Corpus keyword analysis was applied to pre- and post-instruction writing tasks to trace changes in learners’ use of disciplinary vocabulary and collocations, while corpus-informed feedback served as mediation. After one semester of instruction, results show that learners’ increased use and greater variety of business keywords indicate deeper conceptual understanding and enhanced disciplinary literacy. Collocational and pattern analyses of the focal business keyword “price” further suggest a shift from descriptive to analytical expressions, evidencing movement within learners’ zone of proximal development (ZPD). These findings suggest that corpus-informed DA provides a useful means of assessing and fostering both content learning and language development in CLIL and English for Specific Purposes (ESP) pedagogy.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicEducational and Psychological AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207