MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reconsideration on CLT in College English: Theory and Practice

2010· article· en· W2157779361 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kaisheng Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSecond Language Learning and Teaching
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommunicative competenceCommunicative language teachingGrammarPedagogyLinguisticsHumanitiesSociologyLanguage educationPhilosophyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), which is believed in many counties to be a successful method to train communicative competence, has been more widely talked about and practiced in college English teaching since its being first introduced in China in 1980s. However, during about 2 decades of practice, Communicative Language Teaching has met with some inevitable difficulties and barriers. Considering the current impossibility of removing those difficulties and barriers such as the unfavorable learning environment and inconsistent testing system within years, we suggest that an eclectic approach be brought into college English teaching as the present expedient. It is an integration of the revolutionary Communicative Language Teaching principles and traditional Grammar-Translation Method, in coordination with Computer-Assisted Language Learning. Key words: communicative competence, Communicative Language Teaching, Grammar-Translation Method, Computer-Assisted Language Learning, Eclecticism Resume: L’approche communicative dans l’enseignement des langues, qui est consideree comme une methode reussie d’exercer la competence communicative, a ete beaucoup discutee et pratiquee dans l’enseignement de l’anglais universitaire depuis son introduction en Chine dans les annees 1980. Cependant, durant les deux decades de pratique, l’approche communicative a connu des difficultes et barrieres inevitables. Etant donne l’impossibilite d’eliminer dans les prochaines annees ces difficultes et barrieres telles que l’environnement defavorable de l’apprentissage et le systeme de test inegal, nous proposons d’introduire l’approche eclectique comme expedient dans l’enseignement de l’anglais. C’est une integration de l’approche communicative et la methode traditionnelle de grammaire-traduction, qui a combine aussi l’apprentissage des langues avec l’assistance de l’ordinateur. Mots-Cles: competence communicative, approche communicative, methode de grammaire-traduction, apprentissage des langues avec l’assistance de l’ordinateur, eclectisme

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.018
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations9
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicSecond Language Learning and TeachingFrench-language works237,207