Two Japanese language tourists' ESL experience of the functions of the comprehensible output hypothesis: the potential for learning through speaking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The spoken output of adult Japanese students in private Canadian ESL schools is under-researched. These 'language tourists' believe they can improve their English through spoken output despite literature suggesting they are inhibited about speaking. Swain (1985, 1995, 2005) claims language learning can occur through pushed output featuring noticing, hypothesis testing, and metalinguistic reflection. Krashen (1994, 1998, 2003) argues pushed output is anxiety-inducing and infrequent. This case study investigates two Japanese of different gender, proficiency, and class type. Observations of classes and social events, stimulated recalls, learner diaries, and semi-structured interviews provided quantitative and qualitative descriptions of the extent to which they produced spoken output; how that production varied by individual, learning context, activity type, and form and function of language; and what the participants' affective reactions were to the experience. Participants produced at a higher rate out of school than in, and experienced oral production anxiety as worthwhile
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".