The Ideal English Practices for Chinese Kindergartner in Teachers’ Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, there is an extensive body of literature investigating instructional practices for preschool-level English-Language-Learners (ELLs) in China. However, not many of them took into consideration early childhood teachers’ perspectives on the English-teaching practices that are widely implemented in the country, as well as their visions of “ideal” English-teaching practices that may or may not be already implemented in real classrooms. This qualitative study aims to understand Chinese kindergarten teachers’ opinions about the widely used pedagogical practices for ELLs, their ideas about what “ideal” English-teaching practices should be like, and their suggestions for filling the ideal-actual gap. Thirty teachers working at three Shanghai bilingual kindergartens will be surveyed and interviewed. The study is expected to yield the following findings: 1) Teachers prefer solo-teaching than co-teaching for a more efficient lesson planning process; 2) Teachers believe that ideal English-learning activities are ongoing, consistent, and routinized; 3) Teachers render ideal English-teaching practices to be authentic and immersive. The study results have important implications for curriculum designers, kindergarten English teachers and organizations that provide trainings for pre-and-in-service early childhood educators.
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 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".