Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between language and culture in foreign language teaching has been studied in China since 1980s, but there is still a big distance between the theoretical study and the EFL classroom. One of the consequences is that the EFL class becomes the various English exam-oriented classes. Many problems ensue in Chinese EFL classroom. That is why the appeal to the national reform on foreign language education has been urgently on the way. This paper is just the response to the reform in China. Based on the theoretical and practical achievements of this field, the analysis of questionnaire feedbacks of the college students and the author’s teaching experiences, this paper tries to focus on the classroom perspective and provide some new and effective culture teaching strategies for the EFL classroom, in hope of doing some contribution to the national reform on the college English education in China. Keywords: culture teaching, EFL classroom, EFL teaching reform, teaching strategies Resume L’etude des relations entre la langue et la culture dans l’enseignement/apprentissage des langues etrangeres en Chine date des annees 80 du dernier siecle. Mais il existe un certain decalage entre la recherche et la pratique, donc l’enseignement de l’anglais universitaire est oblige de recourir a la reforme. A la lumiere des fruits de recherches theoriques et pratiques de nombreuses annees du monde des langues etrangeres et a partir du resultat des enquetes et de la pratique de l’enseignement de l’anglais universitaire, cet essai presente des tactiques et des approches concretes sur la combinaison organique de l’enseignement de l’anglais et celui de la culture. Mots-cles : introduction de la culture, EFL en classe, reforme de l’enseignement, tactiques de l’enseignement 摘 要 外語教學中語言與文化的關係研究在中國始於上世紀 80年代，但是理論研究與大學英語實踐教學始終存在一定的距離，從而導致大學英語教育不得不訴求改革。本文依據外語界多年來的理論和實踐研究成果，結合學生的問卷調查結果，從大學英語課堂教學實踐出發，就如何將英語教學與文化教學有機地銜接提出一些具體的教學策略和方法，希冀爲當前的大學英語教學改革盡綿薄之力。 關鍵詞：文化導入； EFL课堂；教学改革；教學策略
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".