Bridging Teaching, Learning and Assessment Processes through a Reflective Method: Implications for Plurilingual Learning Environments
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
The challenges of global education highlight the need for students to meaningfully engage with their life experiences, deepen their reflection on their practices and feelings, and learn from them. What challenges may the implementation of such reflective approaches in a plurilingual and pluricultural learning environment entail? This article has a three-fold aim: first, it explores benefits that reflective and participatory methods have brought to plurilingual learners in different learning settings; second it describes the implementation of a three-mode reflective framework in a university blended course aimed at developing plurilingual competences, strategies, and literacies; and third, it argues how such reflective methods may contribute to promoting an integrated and transformative learning experience for a diverse linguistic and cultural learning community.
 Keywords: reflective approach, plurilingualism, plurilingual/pluricultural learning
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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