Chinese International Master’s Students’ Reticence in Engagement Within Business Classrooms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current literature shows that a large number of Chinese international students (CISs) encounter challenges in academic learning, in which their participation in classroom communication is an outstanding problem for these international students. Zhou et al. (2021) demonstrate that many CISs learning in a master of education program at a comprehensive university in Ontario Canada did not actively engage in classroom interaction and communication, and the causes for their passive performance in classroom communication can be various. This study was built on their research to examine Chinese international master’s business students’ classroom learning experience at the same Ontario university to test whether CISs perform the same way in classroom communication in another academic program. This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews to collect data. Eight student participants and two instructor respondents were recruited via purposeful sampling and random sampling. Ultimately, this study discovered that although most business master’s CISs confirm the value of in-class communication, their performance in classroom interactions was not active. The factors influencing their willingness to communicate (WTC) in class are various and mainly cover three aspects: classroom teaching, CISs’ perception of learning and communication, and their satisfaction with Canadian education. Meanwhile, participants provided varying suggestions to increase the CISs’ participation rate.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".