Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently it has become evident that teachers are multifaceted professionals who do not merely reproduce officially sanctioned practices, but actively think about and reflect on their own practices.Based on this reconceptualized view of teaching as a thinking activity, reflective practice has become an important dimension of language teacher education programs.Continuing in this line of thinking, Reflective Language Teaching: From Research to Practice makes an invaluable contribution to promoting reflective practice among language teachers by raising their self-awareness so that they can make informed pedagogical decisions.The introductory chapter traces the origins of reflective teaching and discusses its inclusion in teacher education programs.Although Farrell acknowledges the existence of concurrent definitions of reflective language teaching, he promotes the adoption of the strong version of reflective teaching, which emphasizes a bottom-up approach to systematic reflective practice.He explains how teachers' practices become the source of the very knowledge that will inform their grounded theory of teaching.Following the introductory chapter, each subsequent chapter includes recurring structures or sections that teachers will appreciate.Each chapter begins with a summary of current empirical findings about the focal topic, including a bullet section highlighting research findings for busy teachers.Findings are then supported by case studies stemming from Farrell's 15 years of research in this area.This is followed by a series of reflective questions designed to invite readers to begin making connections with their own personal experiences.Next, practical ideas and reflective prompts are provided to help teachers imagine how to incorporate new knowledge into their existing practices.Each chapter concludes with a brief summary and an end-of-chapter scenario that together exemplify the benefits and/or challenges of the topic.Due to the breadth of topics for reflection and reflective tools covered in this book, we provide here only an outline of the range of issues explored.After the introductory chapter, the next six chapters illustrate how teachers can reflect on various dimensions of their work, including self-reflection (Chapter 2), teachers' beliefs and practices (Chapter 3), teachers' narratives (Chapter 4), teachers' language proficiency (Chapter 5), teachers' metaphors 128
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.382 | 0.353 |
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".