How language teachers address the crisis of praxis in educational research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is concerned with a group of language teachers’ reading and interpretation of a peer-reviewed journal article. It draws empirical materials from a larger study, which explored how teachers addressed the ‘crises’ of representation, legitimation and praxis in educational research. In this article, I present a subset of data to illustrate how some of the participants responded to the crisis of praxis. I describe the participants’ interpretive work as ways of reading, and discuss how these ways of reading constitute an imaginative-ethical approach to reading research. Such an approach, it is argued, holds the potential to interrupt the dominant instrumental model of research use. Throughout the article, a case is made for understanding how teachers read and interpret research-based recommendations in keeping with their local contexts and professional commitment.
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 | 0.096 | 0.123 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.081 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".