The Research on Effectiveness of Communicative Language Teaching 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
Since China initiated Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) practice, it has enjoyed increasing popularity amongst educational practitioners as well as professional researchers. This paper undertakes an in-depth and all-around analysis of pedagogical practices of English class so as to ascertain the feasibility and effectiveness of CLT in China. Although China’s educational system is centrally-controlled, the top-down intervening policy of CLT fails to improve students’ interactive competence. Due to the contextual constraints including excessive class size, limited class hours, Confucian heritage culture, teacher equalizations as well as norm-referenced assessment, current situation of English Language Teaching (ELT) nevertheless is far from aligning with the tenet of CLT. This paper reveals that direct transfer of western–originated CLT practice is infeasible and ineffectual without considering the specific contextual factors in China and doomed to be a failure. Based on this argument, a combination of traditional pedagogy and CLT with an eclectic and dichotomous perspective is proposed and recommended to put into practice in the hope of adapting CLT paradigm to the particular Chinese 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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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