MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2186113345 · doi:10.5539/ells.v5n4p130

Review on “Blended Learning” in Language Teaching

2015· article· en· W2186113345 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xueping Li

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language and Literature Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInner Mongolia University for NationalitiesInner Mongolia University
KeywordsBlended learningModernization theoryChinaContext (archaeology)Mathematics educationCollege EnglishComputer sciencePedagogySociologyPsychologyEducational technologyPolitical scienceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>As blended learning enters the college English reform in China, more and more researchers have made attempts to explore the effects of blended learning context. This paper intends to make an overview of application of it in English teaching in China by reviewing 20 papers published in core journals, with an aim to get a picture of the current situation of blended learning research and application in Chinese context. Thus reasonable suggestions are offered for appropriate approaches to more fully fulfill the role of blended learning in English teaching modernization in China.</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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score0.752

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language and Literature StudiesSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207