English Teachers’ Subjectivities: Contesting and Resisting Must-be Discourses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper problematizes the meaning of subjectivity constructed by Colombian English Teachers in response to a National Bilingual Program and its system of reason to produce English teachers’ identity and promote bilingual education. The double-side character of subjection/subjectification (Foucault, 1982) is used to analyze English teachers’ work of the self and contestarian/resistance practices to affirm themselves as researchers and critical thinkers but also to claim recognition as educators who produce relevant and situated knowledge. Historical Discourse Analysis, through archeological procedures (Foucault, 1972) to trace back English teachers’ discursive and non-discursive practices, were key to unveiling how teachers think of themselves as English teachers, oppose policies and respond to dominant discourses in relation to English teaching. More than 100 English teachers’ academic publications were revised and confronted with normalized discourses circulating in political programs, print media and experts’ documents. Findings contribute to EFL teachers’ understanding of their own struggles and the role of their resistance practices to affirm their subjectivities.
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 | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".