Bibliographic record
Abstract
The introduction of Portfolio-Based Language Assessment (PBLA) into federally funded Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) programs is a major national initiative. This comprehensive approach to classroom-based assessment, aligned to the Canadian Language Benchmarks standards, incorpo- rates current perspectives on assessment and draws heavily on Assessment for Learning (AfL) research and principles. This article describes the PBLA initiative in relation to the research that informs it and outlines the approach that is being used to introduce PBLA into adult ESL programs. The article introduces a model of sustainability proposed by researchers who have led AfL initiatives internationally. Key learning from these initiatives points to implications for PBLA; the author suggests directions for PBLA moving forward. L’intégration de l’évaluation linguistique basée sur le portefeuille (Portfolio- Based Language Assessment - PBLA) dans les programmes subventionnés par le gouvernement fédéral des Cours de langue pour les immigrants au Canada (CLIC) représente une l’initiative nationale majeure. Ce e approche globale à l’évaluation en classe, conforme aux niveaux de compétence linguistique canadien, intègre les perspectives actuelles sur l’évaluation et s’appuie fortement sur la recherche et les principes de l’évaluation au service de l’apprentissage (AfL). Cet article décrit l’intiative de la PBLA par rapport à la recherche qui l’éclaire, et dresse les grandes lignes de l’approche employée pour l’intégrer aux programmes d’ALS pour adultes. De plus, on y présente un modèle de durabilité proposé par les chercheurs qui ont mené des initiatives d’AfL sur le plan international. Les principales leçons de ces initiatives comprennent des incidences pour la PBLA et l’auteure proposent des pistes pour la faire progresser.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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 teacher head, 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".