MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417215878 · doi:10.62819/jel.2025.1371

Translation Learning Needs and Motivations Within Blended Teaching at a Chinese Application-Oriented University

2025· article· W4417215878 on OpenAlexaff
Marilyn Fernandez Deocampo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of English Language and Linguistics · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsAssumption University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlended learningCurriculumCompetence (human resources)Empirical researchConstructivism (international relations)PaceTeaching methodSocial constructivismActive learning (machine learning)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the rapid development and popularization of information technology and online learning platforms, university teaching no longer needs to rely solely on traditional face-to-face instruction. This is particularly relevant for translation courses, which are both theoretically demanding and practically challenging. Blended teaching models can be established by integrating appropriate online learning platforms with varying learning materials. This enables students to learn anytime, anywhere, at a pace suited to their individual needs. Prior to designing such instruction and intervention, it is essential to gain a comprehensive understanding of students’ specific translation learning needs, including their bilingual competence in English and Chinese, as well as their academic and career aspirations. The present study, designed and conducted by the researcher, involved 96 junior English-major undergraduates from Guangdong University of Science and Technology (GUST) in China. As an empirical investigation, it sought to identify the translation learning needs of students at application-oriented universities and to explore how blended teaching, informed by social constructivism approaches, influences learners’ L2 Motivational Self System (L2MSS), particularly its three core dimensions. The findings aim to provide both empirical evidence and theoretical insights for the enhancement of translation pedagogy in Chinese application-oriented universities, offering implications for improving translation curriculum design, aligning blended teaching with students’ professional development, and strengthening sustained translation learning motivation.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of English Language and Linguistics→Same topicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning→French-language works237,207→