MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2261130229 · doi:10.5539/elt.v9n3p33

Learner Autonomy as an element in Chinese Education Reform: A Case of English Language Subject

2016· article· en· W2261130229 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jinjin Lu, Yingliang Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSecond Language Learning and Teaching
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLearner autonomyAutonomyPsychologyCurriculumPedagogyMathematics educationAttendanceSubject (documents)Quality (philosophy)ChinaBasic educationLanguage educationPolitical scienceComprehension approachComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Enhancing students’ learning autonomy has been emphasized in the current round of English curriculum reforms by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in China. The initial aim of the new guidelines was developed to enhance students’ English proficiency to better fulfil their basic education (Nine-year compulsory education). However, up until now, very little is known about the quality of students’ basic education and their learner autonomy development. This paper uses the English language subject as a case to examine the relationship between the different locations of students’ attendance of their basic education and their learner autonomy development at university level. The result shows that secondary schools’ locations play a more important role in students’ learner autonomy development at university. A ‘Have A Go’ model is proposed to improve students’ transition between high schools and universities in the English language learning process.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicSecond Language Learning and TeachingFrench-language works237,207