When inquiry is seen as resistance to change: expert teachers’ experiences with the implementation of portfolio-based language assessment (PBLA)
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
Expert teachers’ experiences with the implementation of portfolio-based language assessment (PBLA) were analyzed through the conceptual framework of critical pedagogy. Serious practitioner concerns about mandatory PBLA implementation challenged the official narrative of PBLA as a progressive change. Through a close examination of three expert teachers’ experiences, this study illuminated the disconnect between the official interpretation of teachers’ “resistance to change,” and the critical inquiry-oriented stance of these practitioners. According to participants, PBLA policy and implementation rendered teachers voiceless in the top-down implementation process. The findings demonstrated that principles of critical language teacher education were neglected in PBLA design and implementation to the detriment of all stakeholders. The findings suggest that these principles may offer helpful guidance in designing and implementing productive educational change in language teaching and 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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