A Study on Teaching College English Reading from the Perspective of Invitational Rhetoric in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we explore the current situation of teaching college English reading in China and offer suggestions for improving it from the perspective of invitational rhetoric, mainly in terms of the three external conditions it advocates, safety, value and freedom, and its core, understanding. We distributed the questionnaire about the current situation of college English reading instruction to students majoring in English and analysed the results. Concerning the conditions of safety, the teachers respected students’ views, but the students were not confident and were unwilling to participate in teacher-student interaction; therefore, teachers should create a safe external environment so that students trust them. Concerning the conditions of value, teachers allowed students to fully express their perspectives, and they prepared and conducted classroom activities from the students’ standpoint. Regarding the conditions of freedom, students were selective in accepting teachers’ views and formulated their own views, but when their views differed from those of teachers, few presented their opinions; teachers must acknowledge their weaknesses at the right time so that students can realise disagreeing with teachers is not equal to offending them. Regarding the conditions of understanding, teachers no longer aimed to instill knowledge; they paid more attention to students’ understanding and encouraged them to form their own ideas while understanding students and accepting reasonable feedback.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".