MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401873424 · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v25i3.7680

The Auxiliary Role of Artificial Intelligence Applications in Mitigating the Linguistic, Psychological, and Educational Challenges of Teaching and Learning Chinese Language by non-Chinese Students

2024· article· en· W4401873424 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jingfang Xia, Yao Ge, Zijun Shen, Mudasir Rahman Najar

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEducational technologyComputer scienceLanguage acquisitionPsychologyMathematics educationLinguisticsTeaching method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Learners might have several challenges while attempting to learn a second/foreign language. Learners of Chinese face linguistic, psychological, and educational challenges. The integration of technology, especially artificial intelligence (AI), into teaching foreign languages is a blessing for teachers and learners. This study delved into the auxiliary role of AI-powered applications in mitigating the linguistic, psychological, and educational challenges which non-Chinese learners face while learning Chinese/Mandarin language. Qualitative research was employed, and 20 teachers of Chinese language were selected through theoretical sampling. In-depth interviews were used for collecting data, and MAXQDA was used for thematic analysis. Findings revealed that AI-powered educational applications are useful for helping language learners overcome the commonly reported linguistic, psychological, and educational challenges which non-Chinese learners and teachers of Mandarin might encounter. Findings verify the effectiveness of AI-powered applications, such as ChatGPT, Poe, Brainly, and so forth, in helping teachers and learners of Chinese language learn grammar, structure, idioms, and cultural issues of Chinese language. Findings have implications for foreign language (Chinese) learners and teachers, educational technologists, as well as syllabus designers.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.445 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations16
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed LearningSame topicEducational Technology and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207