How Can Chinese English Teachers Meet the Challenge of Creating a Learner-Centered, Communicative, Intercultural Classroom to Achieve Optimal Student Learning Outcomes?/COMMENT LES PROFESSEURS CHINOIS D'ANGLAIS PEUVENT-ILS RELEVER LE DÉFI DE CRÉER UNE AMBIANCE CENTRÉE SUR L'APPRENANT, COMMUNICATIVE ET INTERCULTURELLE POUR ATTEINDRE LES RÉSULTATS OPTIMAUX DE L'APPRENTISSAGE DES ÉLÈVES?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Effective reforms on English education in China necessary and essential. Concepts of western English education, such as learner-centered, communicative, or intercultural bring both enlightenment and confusion to Chinese English teachers. However, adoption of these concepts must be done based on Chinese its own English teaching and context. Key words: learner-centered; communicative teaching; intercultural; task based Resume: Des reformes efficaces de l'enseignement de l'anglais en Chine sont necessaires et essentiels. Des concepts de l'enseignement de l'anglais occidentaux, par exemple un enseignement centre sur l'apprenant, communicatif, ou interculturel, rendent les professeurs chinois d'anglais a la fois eclaire et confus. Toutefois, l'adoption de ces concepts doivraient etre realisee en fonction du contexte propre de l'enseignement et de l'apprentissage en Chine. Mots-cles: centre sur l'apprenant; enseignement de langue communicatif; interculturel, basee sur le travail 1. INTRODUCTION English in China is quite a daunting task. Million of EFL learners take regular English courses, 4 teaching hours (less than one hour) a week, 18 weeks a term, for 12 terms in middle school, 4-8 terms in university (Wu, 2001, p. 191). 2001, a policy required primary students in grades three and above (ages 9-1 1) to receive two or three 40-minute English lessons per week and for junior and senior middle school students (ages 12-18), norm is five or six 45-minute English classes per week (Nunan, 2003; Cortazzi & Jin, 1996). However, after approximately 800 hours of instruction, most Chinese students are still deaf and dumb in English, since English courses test-oriented and grammar-based (Ashmore, 2003, cited in Wighting, Nisbet and Tindall, 2005). The discontentment with traditional teaching methodology and outcome called for CLT, which emphasis on function of for meaningful communication. Communicative Language Teaching approach (CLT) has been introduced to China since mid 1980s. However, it was not until early 1990s that application CLT gained substantial progress. 1992, State Education Development Commission made official revision to replace grammar-structure based syllabus with a new communication-based one aiming at developing communicative of competence. According to Yu (2001, p. 195.), Li Xiaoju and her associates first compiled a series of communicative English text books for Chinese learners in 1979, and then in 1984, Li published In Defense of Communicative Approach, first article published in ELT Journal in support of CLT by claiming that language is communication, and a is to communicate (p.2). Her article greatly influenced Chinese English teachers' attitude toward CLT and resulted in several projects that integrated contents relevant to Chinese learners with common communicative expressions as well as grammatical structures. However, in late 1980s, 87 percent of teacher in China's middle schools used traditional structure based method (Zuo et al, 1990, p.40). Even recently some findings also indicate that both teachers and students demonstrate a preference for grammar-based methodology and a resistance to communicative methodology (Hu, 2002; Rao, 2002). an English Language Teaching (ELT) context, which was previously dominated by traditional grammar-translation approach, adoption of CLT has been fraught with challenges as well as welcomes (Wighting, Nisbet and Tindall, 2005, p.87). However, Liao (2004), despite of Bax's Context Approach (2003), Larsen-Freeman's relativism (2000, p. 182) and Holliday's warn (1994) that a method cannot be easily exported from one context to another, adopted Larsen-Freeman's absolutism (2000, p. 182) view on CLT, claiming that CLT is best in China. He concluded: the adoption of CLT is government's position and application of CLT will bring about a positive effect on English teaching and learning (p. …
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".