MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2525957763 · doi:10.5539/ies.v9n10p202

The Development and Proposal to Incorporate Multi-Integrated Instructional Strategies into Immigrant Chinese Language Classes

2016· article· en· W2525957763 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Qiao Yu Cai

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationClass (philosophy)Mathematics educationSituatedLanguage acquisitionGlobalizationPedagogyPsychologyTeaching methodSociologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to globalization and the formation of the global village, people worldwide interact in multiple languages frequently. Concurrently, there has been an increase in motivation to learn different languages for individual purposes. As well, we see that the importance of language education is also being promoted. Past language methods have merit, such as visual aids, but it is not a good idea nor appropriate for teachers to just follow suit without considering the language system of the learners, the country of origin of the learners, and the various background and culture of the learners. In view of these characteristics of immigrants as adult learners participating in Chinese language classes, which are different from adult learners of other languages, this paper tries to develop multi-integrated instructional strategies, which include supportive strategy, auxiliary strategy and core strategy. These strategies are based on theories of accelerated learning, whole brain learning, and situated learning. I propose that Chinese language teachers use these strategies in classes for immigrants. The strategies developed will have implications for immigrants, teacher educators, language program administrators, and other stakeholders in similar contexts.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education Studies→Same topicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning→French-language works237,207→