A sneak peek at training English-medium instructors in China
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English-medium Instruction (EMI) has become increasingly common in non-English speaking countries such as China. EMI instructors’ inadequate English proficiency has been reported as a major hindrance to successful EMI. This study examined EMI instructors’ perceptions on the effectiveness of overseas training programs. The participants of the study were 75 instructors from 20 universities in a big metropolis in China who were engaged in a four-month international assignment in one of the universities in Australia, Canada and the US between 2009 and 2010. Data sources included survey and written reports. Constant comparison was applied to generate common themes. Results indicated that the instructors regarded the training programs that focused more heavily on pedagogy as more effective and hoped for more context-specific pedagogy applicable to Chinese educational systems. They perceived the training programs with an emphasis on supervised teaching practices as more effective. Implications are provided for EMI instructors and administrators.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it