The Analysis of the Problems in Business English Teaching Assessment System and Suggestions for Improvements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As an undergraduate program, Business English is still in the initial stage of development in China. It is a new inter-disciplinary and applied discipline, the teaching of which is practical and diverse. Teaching assessment is an important part of the curriculum teaching because it is beneficial for the teacher to obtain feedback, improve teaching quality and maintain the teaching foundation. It is an effective measure for students to find the most suitable learning methods, correct learning habits and enhance learning efficiency. Teaching assessment plays a macro-control role in the implementation of teaching activities and can ensure the realization of teaching effects. Most of the current assessments of Business English teaching is in line with the language test mode of college English. Their assessment of the students’ Business English ability is conducted from the perspectives of using vocabulary, syntax and text. They only detect one of the students’ comprehensive abilities, namely, language ability while ignoring the assessment of application ability and professional literacy as well as other capabilities. This paper conducts a questionnaire survey on sophomores, juniors, seniors, and students who have graduated majoring in Business English at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies and Hubei University, aiming at finding out problems in the current assessment system for Business English teaching. Based on the analysis of the problems, suggestions for establishing a new Business English teaching assessment system are proposed.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".