MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Teacher's Role in Students-Centered English Intensive Reading Class in China

2012· article· en· W1698137496 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Huijie Ding

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClass (philosophy)Reading (process)Mathematics educationPedagogyForeign languageConstructivism (international relations)Foreign language teachingTeaching methodPsychologyComputer scienceLinguisticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inspired by the theory of Constructivism, the notions of learner diversity and learner choice get a lot of awareness and recognition of many educators, therefore more and more emphasis has been placed on the position of students in the classroom. As a consequence, the traditional teacher-centered foreign language teaching pattern has been supplanted by a new students-centered pattern by which students are the main body of the class and the owner of their learning. However, teachers’ role in students-centered foreign language teaching class should not be neglected. In intensive reading class, which is a course to cultivate the students’ comprehensive abilities of language, the roles of the teacher, instead of as a controller and a dominant, should be played fully as a manager and an organizer of the language teaching class, a designer of the teaching process, a source of teaching material, an investigator and a counselor of students’ learning and a promoter of deepening and confirming the accepted knowledge. Key words: Teacher’s role; Students-centered; Foreign language teaching; Intensive reading

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207