MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385586625 · doi:10.23977/aetp.2023.070809

Exploration of Chinese Teaching Strategies in Primary Schools under the Background of New Curriculum Reform

2023· article· en· W4385586625 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Huang Ziling

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Educational Technology and Psychology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumConsciousnessIdeologyMathematics educationTeaching methodQuality (philosophy)Education reformPedagogySociologyPsychologyPrimary educationPolitical sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the continuous deepening of the new curriculum reform, the most important thing in current Chinese teaching is to improve teaching efficiency. To improve the quality and efficiency of Chinese teaching, it is necessary to improve the efficiency of Chinese classroom teaching. Chinese teaching in primary schools is a fertile ground to enhance students' critical thinking ability, improve their ideological quality, and cultivate their innovative consciousness, spirit and ability. Only by skillfully integrating the activation of educational methods and innovative teaching forms into Chinese teaching can we continuously promote the development of teaching reform and further improve the level of quality education. This paper discusses some problems existing in the process of effective teaching of Chinese in primary schools under the background of new curriculum reform, and puts forward some effective suggestions, such as cultivating students' problem thinking, guiding students to actively explore, and attaching importance to moral education infiltration, in order to inspire primary school Chinese teachers to be student-oriented, realize effective teaching and truly realize students' all-round development.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.370 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Educational Technology and PsychologySame topicEducational Technology and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207