Reflective Writing of Mexican EFL Writers: Levels of Reflection, Difficulties and Perceived Usefulness
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This case study examined the level of reflection in the essays written by 15 Mexican English language teachers taking a Master’s Degree course in English as a foreign language (EFL). The essays were evaluated using the categorization scheme for assessing the level of reflection developed by Kember, et al. (2008). Semi-structured interviews were held with information-rich participants to investigate the difficulties experienced with reflective writing and the usefulness attributed to this academic genre. Findings suggest that the categorization scheme is applicable to reflective writing in EFL, although almost half of the participants continued to write in a non-reflective mode throughout the course. Low level of proficiency in English, lack of familiarity with reflective writing, challenges of deductive reasoning, and the absence of productive feedback were their reported difficulties. Reflective writing was deemed useful because it facilitates participation in class discussion, a more thorough completion of course readings, the adoption of a stance towards SLA theories, and improvement of academic writing ability.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it