Identity Construction of Chinese Business English Teachers from the Perspective of ESP Theory
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
As an interdisciplinary major, Business English has a distinct difference from General English. Therefore, Business English teachers and General English teachers are also very different. However, nowadays, most Business English teachers in most colleges are with the educational background of English Language and Literature. They are facing serious problems of teacher identity construction. As Business English is generally considered to be a branch under English for Specific Purpose (ESP), there is a close connection between Business English and ESP. Therefore, ESP theory can provide a theoretical basis for the development of Business English program and can also provide some guidance for the identity construction of Business English teachers. Based on Needs Analysis and learning-centred approach of ESP theory, combining former researches of this field and observation findings of actual Business English classroom in a university, this article summarizes three identities that Business English teachers should construct: teaching practitioners and researchers, learners, and businesspeople. The study of teacher identity is of great significance to the successful construction of multidimensional teacher identities for Business English teachers and to the realization of their professional development.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 it