Patricia Duff, Tim Anderson, Roma Ilnyckyj, Ella VanGaya, Rachel Tianxuan Wang, and Elliott Yates. Learning Chinese: Linguistic, Sociocultural, and Narrative Perspectives
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Patricia Duff, Tim Anderson, Roma Ilnyckyj, Ella VanGaya, Rachel Tianxuan Wang, and Elliott Yates. Learning Chinese: Linguistic, Sociocultural, and Narrative Perspectives. Munchen, DEU: De Gruyter Mouton USA, 2013. 322 pp. Narratives. $120.48 he. This book, Learning Chinese: Linguistic, sociocultural, and narrative perspectives, is the result of a three-year research project of the Centre for Research in Chinese Language and Literacy Education (CRCLLE) at the University of British Columbia. Patricia (Patsy) Duff, co-director of CRCLLE and professor of Language and Literacy Education, together with Anderson, Ilnyckjy, Lester, Wang and Yates, investigated issues in teaching, learning, and use of Chinese from both structural and interpretive perspectives through multiple approaches. The book is composed of six chapters. The first chapter begins with an overview of the historical and current situations and research in teaching, learning, and using Chinese as an additional language (CAL). It then introduces the research design and procedure, the multiple research methodologies and perspectives, and the organization of the whole book. Drawing on the personal Chinese learning experiences of five Anglo-Canadians who are also five out of the six authors of this book--except Wang who is a native speaker of Chinese and the coordinator of the research project--the research team examined oral Chinese development and production, everyday Chinese literacy development, and identity negotiation and community, each issue being discussed in-depth in one separate chapter respectively. Of the five participants, Duff studied Mandarin informally in the 1980s for two years during her teaching at a university in China, and later on was exposed to Mandarin during her research and trips to China. The other four participants are either current or former graduate students in Chinese applied linguistics. Three of them have studied Mandarin formally and informally for more than ten years. All of them have the experience of living in Mainland China or Taiwan. Chapter 2 studies the five participants' overall Chinese linguistic proficiency and development using a combination of self-assessments based on Common European Framework for Language (CEFR) rubrics, two oral proficiency interviews conducted between each participant and Wang in 2009 and 2010 respectively, and data from standard Chinese language tests such as HSK that some participants took. A detailed language background of each participant is provided to demonstrate the heterogeneity in their learning trajectories and linguistic development. Due to the lack of comprehensive and widely-accepted matrices in assessing Chinese linguistic proficiency, the research focuses on a global discussion of participants' oral abilities, lexical choices, grammar development, and linguistic identities as Chinese learners and users. CAL data are presented in charts and tables, and comparisons are made about the participants' proficiency levels, followed by qualitative analysis of the findings. However, with only two oral interviews of five participants as the main data, the quantitative data appear to be weak in representativeness and generalizability. Chapter 3 examines the development of everyday Chinese written literacy from a qualitative, social-practice perspective. It explores the five participants' different levels of investment in Chinese literacy development and orthographic practices and examines their identities as learners and users of Chinese in relation to their knowledge and use of Chinese characters. To analyze the production of written Chinese, the five participants transcribed part of their own oral interviews with Wang, with or without the help of any dictionaries or word-processing tools. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».