“Teachers are not empty vessels”: A Reception Study of Freeman and Johnson’s (1998) Reconceptualization of the Knowledge Base of Second Language Teacher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study traces the reception history of Freeman and Johnson’s (1998) widelycited article dedicated to theory and practices of second language teacher education(SLTE). It illuminates the degree to which that article has impacted SLTEtheory, research, and potentially instructional practices. The reception studyanalysis is based on a data set of 413 journal articles, books, book chapters, master’stheses, and doctoral dissertations that cited Freeman and Johnson (F&J)between 1999 and 2014. Using an innovative analytical approach combining bothHyland’s (1999, 2004) citation categories and Coffin’s (2009) stance framework,we investigate the citation analytics of F&J within this data set, including howit has been cited over time and the stance that citing authors have taken towardF&J’s proposals. Although F&J’s reconceptualization of the theory and practicesof SLTE sparked initial controversy, our findings indicate that F&J’s article hasnot only been accumulating increased attention over time, but their vision forthe future of SLTE also has gained greater acceptance and has edged closer to thecenter of SLTE. The article concludes with a discussion of implications for furtherreception studies in TESOL/applied linguistics. Cette étude trace le parcours de l’histoire de la réception de article, largementcité, de Freeman et Johnson (1998) portant sur la théorie et les pratiques enformation des enseignants de langue seconde. Elle souligne la mesure dans laquellel’article a eu un impact sur la théorie, la recherche, voire les pratiquespédagogiques, en formation des enseignants de langue seconde. L’analyse de laréception de l’article repose sur un ensemble de données composé de 413 articlesde revue, livres, chapitres de livre, et thèses de maitrise et de doctorat quicitent Freeman et Johnson (F&J) entre 1999 et 2014. Adoptant une approcheanalytique innovatrice qui combine les catégories de citation de Hyland (1999,2004) et le cadre des positions de Coffin (2009), nous examinons les citations deF&J, y compris la façon dont l’article est cité au fil du temps et la position desauteurs qui le citent par rapport aux propositions de F&J. Bien que la reconceptualisationpar F&J de la théorie et des pratiques en formation des enseignantsde langue seconde ait d’abord suscité une controverse, nos résultats indiquent qu’avec le temps, l’article attire de plus en plus d’attention et que la vision que proposent F&J de l’avenir de la formation des enseignants de langue seconde est mieux reçue et prend davantage sa place dans le domaine. L’article se termine par une discussion des incidences des études portant sur la réception d’articles en linguistique appliquée/TESOL à l’avenir.
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 | 0.017 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".