Transforming Teaching and Learning in ELT Through Critical Pedagogy
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
In this study, the voices of academics who use critical pedagogy in English language teaching have been brought together to shed light on how this practice transforms teaching and learning. Data were collected through semistructured interviews with academics from Canada, Hong Kong, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States, and Turkey. Teachers were exposed to considerable emotional upheaval and sometimes risk as they sought to change student worldviews, and student transformation was evident both inside and outside the academy. Students learned their new language through ideas that truly mattered to them instead of learning through neutral knowledge contexts. We conclude that critical pedagogy requires a balance between critical reflection and action as teachers learn to cope with the unexpected in their classrooms. It is suggested that teachers follow up students after graduation in order to determine the long-term impact of critical pedagogy on teaching and learning.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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