A Comparative Study of Thinking Quality Between Chinese and American Junior Middle School Students From the Perspective of Key Competences of English Subject
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
The globalization and information tide in the 21st century have promoted the new demand for talents in social development, and the key competences education came into being under such an era. Subsequently, the “key competences” became the key word of the global educational reform under the background of the new era in the 21st century. The key competences documents promulgated by many countries have obvious consistency and similarity, but they are not completely identical. There may be some problems worthy of reflection behind the differences. As the largest developing country and the largest developed country in the world, the educational views of China and the United States have a profound impact on the world civilization and pattern. As far as English subject is concerned, although English education is foreign language education in China, not native English education or non-native English education in the United States, it is combined with the reality of English education in China. Comparing the similarities and differences in the field of thinking quality between Chinese and American junior middle school English education can promote the reform of domestic English education and improve its quality. Also, many teachers only pay attention to the cultivation of students’ language knowledge and skills in the English classroom at present, neglecting the cultivation of students’ thinking quality, so it is difficult to improve students’ thinking ability and thinking personality traits. Based on this, the paper aims to cultivate and develop thinking quality of junior middle school students from the perspective of key competences of English subject. Through a comparative study of the consistency and difference of thinking quality between Chinese and American junior middle school students by using the methods of literature research and comparative analysis, the paper pays more attention to the problems of thinking quality of junior middle school students in China. As a result, the corresponding solutions are discussed. The paper is divided into five chapters. The first chapter is the introduction. The research background, research purposes, research significance, research problems and research methods are briefly described. The second chapter is the literature review. It covers the research status and research trend of thinking quality at home and abroad. The third chapter is comparative study. This part briefly introduces the framework of Chinese and American key competences, discusses in detail the consistency and differences of Chinese and American junior high school students’ thinking quality in the three dimensions of logic, criticism and innovation, and points out the similarities and differences. The fourth chapter explores the essence of differences. From the perspective of English curriculum, this paper explains the reasons for the differences in thinking quality between Chinese and American junior high school students, including classroom teaching, reading and writing. The fifth chapter is a reflection. It discusses the limitations of the cultivation of thinking quality of junior middle school students in China, draws lessons from useful experience, and initially explores the methods of cultivating thinking quality of junior middle school students, in order to enhance the comprehensive strength of the key competences of junior middle school students.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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