Teaching Chinese-Canadian literature to Taiwanese students : an educational strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores alternative ways for English literature students in Taiwanese Science Universities to choose more culturally accessible works in addition to the canonical English and American literature. Currently, many students consider their experience of reading Western literature to be both perplexing and frustrating because of inadequate language capability as well as unfamiliarity with Western culture. The rationale for introduction to works emerging from the Chinese diaspora is to enable students to situate their personal experiences within the context of different cultures, but ones that nonetheless have accommodated Chinese communities and values. Bearing this in mind, choosing English language works from within the Chinese diaspora is a natural progression and is based on the assumption that its content shares the same cultural identity that Taiwanese students are already familiar with. My hope is to provide teaching strategies for literature teachers of Taiwan to consider. The learning culture in Taiwan tends to dissociate the self and sentiments from the learning experience. Accordingly, it is hard for them to express their own feelings within the learning environment. In this thesis I try to address these problems through examination of Rosenblatt's transactional theory (1995), and exemplification of the theory through Nussbaum's literary exegesis of Henry James' Golden Bowl. I then attempt a parallel study of Wayson Choy's The Jade Peony (1995) as an example of how a work from the Chinese diaspora might be used in a Taiwanese classroom. I argue that the application of transactional theory could enhance meaning making in English literature classes for Taiwanese students. The thesis concludes with a discussion of strategic emphases for teachers of English literature in Taiwan.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".