3 Teaching and Assessment with the CLB: Teacher Experiences and Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
T he importance of classroom-based official-language instruction for newcomers cannot be overstated.Almost half of the immigrants surveyed as part of the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada (Chui 2003) participated in adult immigrant English-language training and, of this group, 85 percent found English-language training classes to be useful or very useful (Smit and Turcot 2010).Thus, the development of the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) is arguably one of the most significant endeavours to come out of the publicly funded arena of English as a second language in Canada.As such, the importance of the CLB for programming and instruction in these classes across Canada cannot be underestimated.Although described as a "foundation of shared philosophical and theoretical views on language ability that informs language instruction and assessment" (CIC and CCLB 2012, v), it is how the CLB ultimately inform language instruction in the classroom that is the focus of this chapter.The CLB are clearly labelled as a set of descriptive statements about communicative competencies and levels on a continuum of language ability, and a standard and reference framework for planning curriculum for teaching and learning.As well, it is clearly laid out what the CLB are not; that is, not a curriculum, instructional method, or assessment, nor are they a description of the discrete elements of knowledge and skills underlying communicative competence, such
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".