Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are two main factors that have contributed to the emergence of a modern educational phenomenon known as the "Chinese Leaner." The "Chinese learner" is described as, "...being obedient to authority, passive in class, lacking in critical thinking, and adopting inadequate learning strategies" (Clark & Gieve, 2006, p. 54). The concept of the "Chinese Learner" cannot be understood without understanding the historical and cultural roots that precede its emergence. This paper will address the cultural and sociopolitical influences that may underlie the descriptions commonly associated with Chinese students. Although culture is deeply embedded and influences individuals in their educational contexts, it is crucial to acknowledge that the "Chinese Learner" only exists when contrasted and applied to Westernized standards and ideals of education and learning. The "Chinese Learner" presents a paradox since many Chinese students rise above the stereotype of being superficial learners and perform quite well in their studies. This prompts one to use a more critical lens when evaluating whether or not being a "Chinese Learner" is at an advantage or disadvantage in the classroom. The paradox of the "Chinese Learner" leads to the realization that this construct is only possible in Western educational settings. Without the contrast between the two, there would be no such concept. Therefore, in order to understand the phenomenon of the "Chinese Learner," it is important to explore the cultural traditions, sociopolitical changes, and Western educational practices that are intertwined that allow for people to establish such a concept within a group of specific learners in the first place.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".