Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper investigated four Chinese graduate students' perceptions of the major differences between North American and Chinese classroom teaching styles. Major differences in the following five areas were identified: 1) the teacher's role, 2) the student's role, 3) the form of class organization, 4) the teacher's expectations, and 5) the student's expectations. It then explored these four Chinese graduate students' North American classroom learning reality. Finally, the paper examined how they adjusted their classroom learning strategies and approaches accordingly so that they could adapt the North American classroom environment. ********** During the past two decades there has been a significant growth in the number of non-native speakers (NNS) of English pursuing academic studies in North American universities. Statistics shows that students from the People's Republic of China are the largest single group, and approximately 80% of them are graduate students (Canadian Bureau for International Education, 2002; Institute of International Education, 2001). Generally, they have completed their undergraduate education in China prior commencing graduate studies in North American universities. Chinese graduate students are from a very different cultural background. Their learning experience in North American classrooms has important educational implications for both university administrators and educators (Huang & Klinger, 2006). Academic learning, as argued by Tweed and Lehman (2002), varies depending on the cultural context. They proposed a Confucian-Socratic framework analyze the influence of different cultural contexts on academic learning. Socrates (469-399 BC), a Western exemplar, valued the questioning of both his own and others' beliefs, the evaluation of others' knowledge, self-generated knowledge, and teaching by implanting doubt. Socratic-oriented learning involves overt and private questioning, expression of personal hypotheses, and a desire for self-directed tasks (p. 93). In contrast, Confucius (551-479 BC), an Eastern exemplar, valued effortful and respectful learning, behavioral reform, and pragmatic acquisition of essential knowledge (Tweed & Lehman, 2002). Confucian-oriented learning involves effort-focused conceptions of learning, pragmatic orientations learning, and acceptance of behavioral reform as an academic (p. 93). Confucian philosophy has a strong impact on Chinese people's viewpoints, ways of thinking and behaviors. Confucius stressed the importance of hard work. He believed that success was mainly due hard work rather than ability. He also believed that reform is a central goal of education because virtuous behavior can ensure individual success and societal harmony (Tweed & Lehman, 2002, p. 92). Confucius valued pragmatic learning. He viewed the goal of learning as competently conduct oneself within a civil service job. He stressed the acquisition of essential knowledge and respectful learning. He taught his students respect and obey authorities. He once said that to honor those higher than ourselves is the highest expression of the sense of justice (Confucius, 1947, p.332). When Chinese graduate students come study in North American classrooms, many bring a Confucian-oriented perspective their learning, while their North American professors and peers may have a more Socratic orientation. Since they have little exposure Western classroom cultures, they will feel unfamiliar and even uncomfortable with North American classroom culture (Huang & Klinger, 2006). Research with NNS of English studying at North American universities in an English for academic purposes context has indicated that Chinese graduate students experience considerable challenges and anxiety in their academic studies (Huang, 2004, 2005; Huang & Klinger, 2006; Sun & Chen, 1997; Upton, 1989). They often feel uncomfortable with the students' behaviors at North American classrooms (Upton, 1989). …
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".