English immersion schools in China: evidence from students and teachers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Research has demonstrated that second language immersion is an effective means of facilitating primary school students' second language acquisition without undermining their competence in their first language. Despite the rapid growth of Chinese–English bilingual programmes in China, limited empirical research has been conducted thus far by which to evaluate the programme effectiveness in relation to students' academic achievement, their cognitive development and the teaching and learning processes with regard to teacher education. This article presents evidence from several related empirical studies recently conducted in three schools affiliated with the China–Canada–United States English Immersion (CCUEI) project. These studies focus on three broad categories of findings: first, on student academic achievement represented by English (L2), Chinese (L1) and mathematics (both literacy and numeracy); second, on cognitive predictors of English reading and listening achievement of these immersion students; and third, on immersion teachers who teach within the context of Chinese–English bilingual education. These combined results present a complex developmental picture of students' academic achievement and cognitive development; and an insight into the teachers who teach within the context of an aggressive fast growth of Chinese–English bilingual programmes in China.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it