MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391065070 · doi:10.5539/jel.v13n1p162

The Development of a Task-Based Chinese Speaking Instructional Model for Chinese as a Foreign Language Learners in Thailand

2024· article· en· W4391065070 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhiyong Dai, Goachagorn Thipatdee, Metcha Metjiranont

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)PsychologyMathematics educationInstructional designForeign languageTask analysisChinese as a foreign languageChinese languageComputer sciencePedagogyLinguisticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research aimed to (1) develop a task-based Chinese speaking (TBCS) instructional model to enhance the Chinese speaking skills of beginner-level Thai learners studying Chinese as a foreign language (CFL), (2) implement the developed TBCS instructional model with beginner-level Thai CFL learners for refinement, and (3) evaluate the suitability of the developed model by seeking experts’ opinions. The participants of this research included 5 experts specialized in instructional model design and teaching Chinese as a foreign language, as well as 22 beginner-level Thai CFL learners enrolled in a Chinese program at a public high school in Thailand. Research instruments included the TBCS instructional model with 12 lesson plans and the expert evaluation form. The collected data were analyzed by using mean, standard deviation, and percentage. The research findings revealed that (1) the developed TBCS instructional model consisted of 7 key elements: goals and assumptions, teaching procedures, learning environment, principles and reactions, support system, application, and instructional and nurturant effects, with the teaching procedures comprising of 4 major steps: activate prior experience, build language skills, carry out tasks, and deepen understanding, (2) the students had successful speaking performance after studying through the developed model, and (3) the suitability of the developed TBCS instructional model was evaluated by experts at the highest level.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207