MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174637622 · doi:10.82308/74

To speak or not to speak: silence in classrooms

2019· article· en· W3174637622 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Jihae Park

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Educational Sciences
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsSilencePedagogyLinguisticsCommunicationPsychologySociologyAestheticsArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The enrollment number of Chinese students in North American universities is increasing every year. Even though graduate courses are discussion-based, many university instructors have experienced the "silent Chinese" phenomenon in classrooms. This study looks through investigating the reasons for Chinese international students' silence in classrooms. Basil Bernstein's language code theory was used as a theoretical framework to explain the difficulties international students experience in speaking up in class. From students' narratives, the aim of this study is to understand genuine reasons for their silence so that the school community can better assist students with diverse backgrounds. Using in-depth interviews, this study explores six international Chinese students' experiences studying abroad in a graduate program at a large university in Canada. Three themes were identified from the interviews: First, language proficiency; second, previous schooling experience in China; and third, Chinese typical culture of face. This thesis concludes with implications on how this study to understand Chinese international students' difficulties can bring in great learning opportunities to the classroom and also create a multicultural classroom that values diverse ideas.Keywords: Chinese international students, silence in classrooms, face culture, language codes

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicSocial and Educational SciencesFrench-language works237,207