Histórias de colaboração em um projeto de conversação em língua inglesa vinculado ao Núcleo de Estudos Canadenses.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artigo tem como objetivos analisar de que maneira o projeto de extensão de conversação em língua inglesa Tea Break, vinculado ao Núcleo de Estudos Canadenses da Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, se constitui como um espaço de aprendizagem colaborativa, bem como refletir sobre as implicações da nossa participação como monitoras do projeto para nossa formação como professoras de língua inglesa. Pautamo-nos pela Pesquisa Narrativa, segundo Clandinin e Connelly (2000), pela teoria sociointeracionista, por estudos sobre metodologia de ensino de línguas e aprendizagem colaborativa. Por meio da Composição de Sentidos (Ely; Vinz; Downing; Anzul, 2001) em nossas narrativas e diários reflexivos, percebemos que a colaboração no Tea Break relaciona-se à participação efetiva dos aprendizes, e que como monitoras nos constituímos como professoras.Résumé: Cet article vise à examiner comme le projet d’extension de la conversation à l’anglaise Tea Break, associé au centre d’études canadiennes à l’Université Fédérale d’Uberlandia, est cofiguré comme un espace d’apprentissage collaboratif, et de réfléchir sur les implications de notre participation en tant que moniteurs du projet pour notre développement en tant que professeurs d’anglais. Nous basons notre travail sur la recherche narrative, selon Clandinin et Connelly (2000), la théorie de l’interaction sociale, les études sur la méthodologie de l’enseignement des langues et l’apprentissage collaboratif. Grâce à la composition de sens (Ely, Vinz, Downing; Anzul, 2001) à partir de nos récits et journaux réflexive, nous perçûmes que la collaboration dans le Tea Break est lié à la participation effective des apprenants, et que, en tant que moniteurs, nous nous constitué en tant que professeurs.Mots-clés: recherche narrative; apprentissage collaboratif; l’enseignement et l’apprentissage de l’anglais.Abstract: This article aims at analyzing how the extension project of conversation in English Tea Break, associated to the Canadian Studies Center at Federal University of Uberlandia, is constituted as a space for collaborative learning, and reflect upon the implications of our participation as monitors of the project to our development as English teachers. We base our studies on Narrative Inquiry, according to Clandinin and Connelly (2000), the social interactionist theory, studies on language teaching methodology and collaborative learning. Through the Composition of Meaning (Ely, Vinz, Downing; Anzul, 2001) from our narratives and reflexive diaries, we realized that collaboration in Tea Break is related to the effective participation of learners, and that as monitors we constitute ourselves as teachers.Keywords: narrative inquiry; collaborative learning; english teaching and learning.
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 | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".