(Re)conceptualiser l'enseignement d'une langue seconde à l'aide d'outils d'évaluations: comment les enseigants canadiens perçoivent le CECR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growth of interest in the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) in Canada has moved from academic discussions and feasibility studies to the publication of institutional documents informing language education policies. Far less attention has been given so far to the need for professional development aimed at helping teachers grasp the conceptual density of the document. Following an exploratory phase aimed at investigating issues and challenges teachers are faced with in the domain of assessment, a qualitative study was conducted in the Canadian context to investigate the impact of targeted professional development on teachers’ perceptions of the potential of the CEFR. The results of the study show how a four-phase guided reflective process can help teachers overcome their perception of the CEFR as a standard © 2013 The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 69, 4, (November / novembre), 386–414 doi:10.3138/cmlr.1737.386 setting tool and consider the vision of assessment it proposes as a way for deeply questioning their own teaching practice.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".