Teachers’ Teaching Communicative Rationality: Connotation, Mechanisms and Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is a universal phenomenon that there has been lack of communicative rationality in teachers’ classroom teaching communication. The essence of teaching communicative rationality is regularity, purposiveness and normativity. Besides those, the formation of teaching communicative rationality is restricted by the thinking mode, experience, habits, commonsense, sensibilities and other passive cultural factors of instrumental rationalism, as well as the dehumanized classroom communicative norms and the teaching behavioral patterns of giving and accepting. The generating mechanisms of teachers’ teaching communicative rationality are as follows. The core factor is reflective communication practice. The intrinsic power is the communication motivation of self-fulfillment. The rational use of languages comes to the necessary condition. The essential guarantee is the humanized communication norm. In view of what has been mentioned above, it is necessary to take measures to promote teachers’ communicative rationality from four aspects: reconstructing the value rationality of teaching communication, re-understanding the meaning of teaching communication, initiatively promoting the individual construction and consciously reflecting the practice of inner communication.
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 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".