Cross-cultural methodological innovation in Bhutan: teacher experiences with the process writing approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of English as the global lingua franca and its centrality to economic and social expansion in the twenty-first century has led to increased government emphasis on fostering the language in contexts where it has no official status. Frequently initiatives to increase English competence in these so-called ‘expanding circle’ nations – a term coined by Kachru (1992) in association with his concentric circles model of the global uptake of English – take the form of aid-funded projects with methodological innovation based on educational paradigms originating in contexts where English is a primary language. This paper examines one such collaboration; a partnership between the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and the Kingdom of Bhutan, which led to Bhutan’s adoption of the Process Writing Approach (PWA). Specifically, we utilise Hofstede’s (1980) framework of cultural dimensions to compare the ideological underpinnings of the PWA with the values and practices of traditional Bhutanese education.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".