MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1894006958 · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v8i1.336

Integration of the High-tech and Low-tech in Distance Teacher Training in China: An insight from the case of Jiangsu Radio and Television University

2007· article· en· W1894006958 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiangyang Zhang, Shu-Chiu Hung

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTeacher educationDistance educationMathematics educationTask (project management)HonourService (business)PsychologyTechnology integrationPedagogyChinaTeaching methodMedical educationEngineeringPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports the result and subsequent exploration of the pilot multi-media in-service teacher training programme with BA degree (non-honour) ( English Language Education) undertaken in the past three years (2001-2004) in China’s distance education. Through the integration of low-tech and high-tech in instructing and delivering courses, many interesting findings have been unexpectedly obtained. Both the trainers (the university lectures) and trainees (in-service school teachers) have experienced a great transformation in their language teaching and learning: a). the trainees (in-service school teachers) have become more independent learners since they raised their educational level; b). the trainers (university lecturers) have learned to adjust their roles in classroom teaching: to be more learner-centred and less teacher-centred; c). acommunicative task-based approach has been satisfactorily adopted and implanted into the process of learning and teaching; d). the trainees have not only upgraded their qualifications but also their teaching methodology. Based on the findings from the case, the authors offer suggestions for the future development of distance teacher training.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations18
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed LearningSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207