An Analysis of the Availability of L1 in English Teaching in Primary Schools in Mainland China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to explore the availability of L1 (Chinese) in Chinese primary English (L2) classrooms. The paper analyzes this issue at three levels: theory of pedagogy, the current situation of L1 use in Chinese primary English teaching, and the analysis of a specific textbook, concluding that L1 can be appropriately applied in Chinese primary English classrooms. In terms of pedagogy, the communicative language teaching method, audiolingual method and direct method do not support the use of L1, however in the practical application of the pedagogies, the use of L1 shows some advantages; L1 is commonly used in Chinese primary English classrooms as it is in line with the students’ learning backgrounds and characteristics, and there is also a positive transfer of the students’ L1 to L2 acquisition; in the analysis of practical teaching materials, it is found that, although the skills such as reading and listening can be learned in teacher-student L2 communication, some grammar, vocabulary and phonology explanations still require L1 intervention. It is therefore suggested that the appropriate use of L1 in the Chinese primary classroom can facilitate students’ L2 acquisition.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".