MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103903568

Investigation into the Perceptions of Students, Parents, and Teachers in China’s Education Reform in Grades 7 and 8

2009· article· en· W2103903568 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Joong, Ying Xiong, Lin Li, Chun Jian Pan

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Educational Reforms and Inequalities
Canadian institutionsNipissing University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionChinaCurriculumPsychologyPedagogyQuality (philosophy)Professional developmentMathematics educationMedical educationPolitical scienceMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to examine how and to what extent Grades 7 and 8 teachers have implemented educational reforms in China that have had a direct impact on students, teachers, and parents. Major sources of data for this study were separate anonymous surveys for teachers, students, and parents. The study concluded that teachers and parents liked the reform initiatives. Most teachers were able to make changes that supported the reforms that include curriculum planning, teaching strategies, student evaluation, and special education. Teachers lacked in-service professional development and resources, especially in the rural areas. Teachers experienced difficulties that arose from the conflict between activity-based learning and exam-oriented systems. Parents and society need to change their mindsets of valuing exam achievements. Chinese educators are at the crossroads of whether the ‘quality’ movement is what the students and society need at this time or make changes in the high stakes examination. Leaders who want to implement change will have to pay attention to the voices of stakeholders.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.398 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicGlobal Educational Reforms and InequalitiesFrench-language works237,207