Rethinking silence in the classroom: Chinese students’ experiences of sharing indigenous knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research has documented silence/reticence among East‐Asian international students, including Chinese students, in Western/English classrooms. Students’ communication competence and cultural differences from the mainstream Euro‐American society have been identified as two primary barriers to participation. Placing emphasis on individual characteristics of Chinese students, however, without considering aspects of the educational context with which those characteristics interact, may over‐simplify and distort the mechanism underlying their silence in the classroom. Based on a qualitative study of Chinese students’ experience of sharing indigenous knowledge in classroom settings of Canadian academic institutions, it is argued that the pursuit of diversity in the classroom may be compromised by classroom interactions, through which, for instance, the dynamics and quality of the knowledge exchange of students from different socio‐cultural backgrounds may be adversely affected. Within this conceptual framework, the concepts ‘silence’, ‘culture difference’ and ‘indigenous knowledge’ are re‐examined; the concepts ‘reciprocal cultural familiarity’ and ‘inclusive knowledge sharing’ are advocated. … [W]hen I did participate, mostly because I was required to. … Students took turns to present something and that is your topic. You have to say something but even then I didn’t feel that good because it seems … they didn’t feel that interested, … like they couldn’t follow my ideas, follow my perspective. And so it seems difficult to communicate. I think that is not just because of the language, it seems we see the same thing in different ways. (Chinese student in this study)
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".