Teachers’ Perception and Practice of English Language Teaching Following CLT Approach in Chinese Higher Education - A Study of Two Higher Educational Institutions in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
the purpose of the present study was to investigate the role of teachers’ perception and practice of English language teaching in the implementation of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach in two Chinese universities, which was conducted with three pragmatic purposes: 1). to investigate teachers’ perception on the characteristics of CLT approach used in English language teaching; 2). to identify teachers’ perceived practice of instructional strategies with CLT approach in helping students develop their communicative language skills; 3). to explore the problems and obstacles in the midst of English language teaching with it. The mixed methodology of (Quant +qual) approaches was employed in this study. The data was collected from forty college English teachers who were working at the Department of Applied English through survey questionnaire, a case study, and semi-structured phone-call interview. The findings revealed that almost teachers’ perception and practice had a noticeably positive correlativity with the characteristics of CLT approach in ELT, directly manifesting that the three intricate characteristics and instructional strategies of CLT approach in practice as they’ve frequently perceived highly related to the improvement of students’ English language communication skills, respectively. Nevertheless, some problems and obstacles were likewise illustrated, which probed to be difficultly operated in prolific English language teaching class within CLT approach. Implications for the study are that teachers’ perception and practice of ELT with the characteristics of CLT approach have meaningful effects on ELT development in Chinese higher education as well as the exhibited issues in class operation profoundly requires consideration to be kept from in college class.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".