MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385586857 · doi:10.23977/aetp.2023.070807

Standardized Teaching Strategies in English Classroom under the "1+X" Certificate System

2023· article· en· W4385586857 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fengyun Li

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Educational Technology and Psychology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertificateConnotationVocational educationMathematics educationCurriculumPlan (archaeology)Interpretation (philosophy)PedagogyPsychologyMedical educationComputer scienceMedicineLinguisticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The proposal of "1+X" certificate system has an overall and important guiding significance for China's vocational education reform. English vocational skill level examination came into being under the background of deepening vocational education. It emphasizes the achievement-oriented, relying on real scenes to investigate and evaluate students' comprehensive ability to use English to solve workplace tasks in specific professional activities and communication situations. "X" intuitively reflects the development trend and market demand of related industries, and it is the vane of talent training, and its significance is self-evident. Based on the interpretation of the connotation of the "1+X" certificate system, this paper analyzes the problems existing in standardized English classroom teaching, and puts forward the standardized English classroom teaching strategies under the "1+X" certificate system: adjusting the talent training plan, optimizing the curriculum, strengthening school-enterprise cooperation and strengthening the construction of "double-qualified" teachers for English majors. It provides new ideas for standardized English classroom teaching in the new form.

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)0.001
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 score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.347 · 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