Oral Portfolio in Spanish as a Third Language: Harnessing the Potential of Self- and Peer-Assessment
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
Even though research in second language acquisition has demonstrated the importance of oral production and interaction, there is a growing tendency toward distance learning. Therefore, in order to include oral practice and evaluation in an online course, a new pedagogical tool was designed, namely the oral portfolio. This article describes and analyzes an oral portfolio which included learner production and self- and peer-assessment. Combining these aspects provided data on both linguistic and metalinguistic abilities. The results revealed a relationship between oral competency and self- and peer-assessment abilities, suggesting a beneficial role of metalinguistic reflection in the development of oral communication skills. Moreover, this study explored how self- and peer-assessment could be better implemented in a language course. Based on the observations gathered throughout the study, we believe that learners need to be trained and to develop the formative assessment competency, in order to maximize the benefits, for assessment to be as sustainable as possible.
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 | 0.009 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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