Autonomy for Success: Contribution of the Adult-Based Language Portfolio to ESL Students' Autonomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was carried out in an ESL classroom in the Quebec Adult General Education system, where the individualized instruction method that is in place requires learners to be autonomous. Moreover, the development of oral skills is particularly important, since 40-60% of evaluations are of oral proficiency. Research suggests that some students lack learning tools and strategies and recommends self-evaluation and monitoring tools to prepare them to cope with this unique educational method (Gagnon & Brunel, 2005). The Adult-Based Language Portfolio (Poirier & Clavet, 2017) is a pedagogical tool aimed at developing learner autonomy while learning a second language (L2); it incorporates the CEFR, a self-evaluation tool with descriptors that illustrate what learners can do with the language in the context of each skill (Council of Europe, 2001; 2017a). The goal of this study was to explore the contribution of the Adult-Based Language Portfolio to students’ autonomy concerning the development of oral skills, guided by three principles: learner involvement, reflection, and language use (Little, 2007). The findings show that the role of the teacher was key, especially in creating opportunities for oral interaction. Working in small collaborative groups with the portfolio proved to be a valuable strategy; it helped build relationships, encouraged socialization, and allowed for a dynamic of building confidence and oral skills. The portfolio pedagogy helped students get involved in their learning, reflect on their cognitive and metacognitive strategies, and most importantly, develop their L2 by improving their oral skills. \n \nCette étude a été menée dans une classe d’anglais langue seconde de la formation générale des adultes au Québec, où la méthode pédagogique utilisée est l’enseignement individuel. Cela implique que les apprenants doivent être autonomes. En outre, le développement de leurs compétences orales est primordial, puisque 40% à 60% des évaluations mesurent les compétences orales. La recherche suggère que les étudiants manquent d’outils et de stratégies d’apprentissage, et recommande l’utilisation d’outils d’auto-évaluation et de suivi afin préparer les apprenants à transiger avec cette méthode d’apprentissage unique (Gagnon & Brunel, 2005). Le portfolio des langues pour adultes (Poirier & Clavet, 2017) est un outil pédagogique conçu pour accroitre l’autonomie de l’apprenant tout en développant une langue seconde (L2). Il intègre le Cadre européen commun de référence pour les langues (CECR), un outil d'auto évaluation avec des descripteurs qui illustrent les aptitudes langagières de l’apprenant pour chaque compétence (Conseil de l’Europe, 2001; 2017). L’objectif de cette étude était d’explorer la contribution du portfolio des langues pour adultes à l’autonomie des étudiants lors du développement de leurs compétences orales. L’autonomie est guidée par trois principes : l’engagement, la réflexion et l’utilisation de la langue (Little, 2007). Les résultats montrent que le rôle de l'enseignant a été essentiel, en particulier dans la création d'occasions d'interaction orale. Le fait de travailler en petits groupes collaboratifs avec le portfolio a été une stratégie utile; cela a permis d’établir des relations, a encouragé la socialisation et a permis un environnement favorable au développement de la confiance et des compétences orales. L’utilisation du portfolio comme outil pédagogique a poussé les étudiants à s’impliquer davantage dans leur apprentissage, à réfléchir à leurs stratégies cognitives et métacognitives, et, surtout, à développer leur langue seconde tout en améliorant leurs compétences orales.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".