Bibliographic record
Abstract
The European Language Portfolio is one of the most innovative tools developed by the Council of Europe to implement its policies aimed at promoting plurilingualism and pluriculturalism. Based on the latest developments in metacognitive strategies for learning, it provides useful assistance to language teaching and learning. This article analyses the introduction of a language portfolio into two secondary school first forms, as part of a teaching practice experience in a vocational school. Focusing on the phase of self- assessment and its impact on motivation to learn, it explores possible ways to introduce students who are not used to reflecting on their learning to metacognition. Bibliography Bachman, L.F. and Palmer, A.S. 1989. The construct validation of self-ratings of communicative language ability . Language Testing 6/2: 14-25. Blue, G. 1994. Self-assessment of foreign language skills: Does it work? CLE Working Papers 3: 18-35. Brindley, G. 2001. Assessment. In R. Carter and D. Nunan (eds.) Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pages: 137-143. Dickinson, L. 1987. Self-Instruction in Language Learning . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dornyei, Z. 2001. Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heron, J. 1988. Assessment revisited. In D. Boud (ed.) Developing Student Autonomy in Learning . New York: Kogan. Pages: 77-90. Mariani, L. and Tomai, P. 2004. Il portfolio delle lingue. Metodologie, proposte, esperienze . Roma: Carocci editore. Oscarson, M. 1997. Self-assessment of foreign and second language proficiency. In C. Clapham and D. Corson (eds.) Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Vol. 7: Language Testing and Assessment . Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Pages: 175-187. Ready-Morfitt, D. 1991. The role and limitations of self-assessment in testing and research . Unpublished manuscript, Second Language Institute, University of Ottawa. Ross, S. 1998. Self-assessment in language testing. A meta-analysis and analysis of experiential factors . Language Testing 15/1: 1-20. Council of Europe. 2000. European Language Portfolio (ELP): Principles and Guidelines . Downloaded from the website www.coe.int/portfolio on 21/04/05. Language Policy Division. 2004. European Language Portfolio (ELP). Principles and Guidelines with added explanatory notes (version 1.0) . Downloaded from the website www.coe.int/portfolio on 21/04/05. Little, D. and Perclova, R. 2001. The European Language Portfolio: a guide for teachers and teacher trainers . Downloaded from the website www.coe.int/portfolio on 21/04/05. Oxford, R. 1989. The Role of Styles and Strategies in Second Language Learning . Eric Digest. Downloaded from the web address http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9214/styles.htm on 22/04/05. Oxford, R. 1994. Language Learning Strategies: An Update . Downloaded from the web address http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/oxford01.html on 22/04/05. Peirce, W. 2003. Metacognition: Study Strategies, Monitoring, and Motivation . Downloaded from the web address http://academic.pg.cc.md.us/~wpeirce/MCCCTR/metacognition.htm on 13/04/05.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
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".