at, "[allthough be-coming proficient in standard American English maybe an important school goal for all students, it shouldnot be viewed as a prerequisite for literate classroombehavior.... When it is viewed as a prerequisite,teachers deny students the opportunity to use theirown language as a tool for learning" (1

le: allowing studentsto use "their own culturally acceptable conversationalstyle to talk and write about ideas they read in texts"helps them to "become more content-literate and toimprove their literacy skills

). Therefore, we must create an English lan-guage arts program rich in oral language activitiesthat "promote rich repertoires of communicationcontexts, provide opportunities for trying out com-munication behaviors, and supply feedback withwhich students may evaluate their communicativeeffectivene

). Studentsare more likely to perform suc-cessfully at school when thereis a greater correspondencebetween their cultural back-grounds and school experiencessuch as "task interest, effort,academic achievement, and feelings of personal effi-cacy or social accountability"

only 56 percent of African American studentsgraduate from high school (Rotherham 136)?

. To respect AAVE in the classroom, wemust create a learning environment that values di-versity in experience, culture, and languag

Many of the educators working with AfricanAmerican students are "white, middle-class, mono-lingual English-speaking women and men who havehad little direct experience with cultural, ethnic,linguistic or other kinds of diversity"

African Holocaust" (19).

He argues that teaching more people toavail themselves of the linguistic and rhetorical potency of code-meshedEnglishes is a more politically responsible and pedagogically efficaciousapproach to the teaching of writing for all students.

oung notes the ubiquity ofcode-meshing in public discourse, both professional and political, andthe relative silence of the teaching profession on the prevalence and rhe-torical value of code-meshing.

Young advocates for a code-meshingpedagogy that teaches the conflicts associated with language use: thepower dynamics that inform the reception, valuation, privileging,and disenfranchising not only of dialects but also of their speakers andwriters.

Young suggests that teach-ing students of colour to speak and write the favoured dialect ratherthan addressing the racism that, among other harms it inflicts, promotesthat dialect over and against students’ own languages constitutes akind of resignation to racism

He points out the implicit or agenticracism that shapes teachers’ “address” of linguistic racism by “puttinganother dialect, evidently one favoured by those perpetrating prejudice,in the mouths of the disadvantaged” (p. 55).

Each writeraddresses language and rhetorical diversity—code-meshing—from theirdisciplinary vantage point

oes not assume consensus but worksfor an informed, thoughtful, and careful conversation

While there is no easy exit from the morass of racial politics inNorth America and the roles assigned to teachers of writing, reading,and speaking within that morass, there are alternatives to thoughtlesslygoing along. If there is insufficient work within the field of writing stud-ies to teach us how to think more deeply and effectively about antiracistpedagogical practice in the writing centre, then perhaps we may findaid in published scholarship outside the field, as well as inspiration anda firmer footing for producing our own. In this regard, two recentlypublished books stand out to me as offering both a richly developedtheoretical framework and teaching advice that can easily be transferredfrom the classroom to the writing centre context: Other People’s English:Code-Meshing, Code-Switching, and African American Literacy, written byVershawn Ashanti Young, Rusty Barrett, Y’Shanda Young-Rivera,& Kim Brian Lovejoy (2014) (published by Teachers College Press),and Survivance, Sovereignty, and Story: Teaching American Indian Rhetorics,edited by Lisa King, Rose Gubele, & Joyce Rain Anderson (2015b)(published by Utah State University Press).

f we speak for and gate keep on behalf of racistlinguistic and rhetorical intolerance and exclusion, that’s the house inwhich we will live. And if we tutor student-writers to do the same, thenthat’s the house in which they will live as well.

Displacing responsibility for the ways in which racism inflects andinforms the reception of othered languages, discourses, and rhetoricaltraditions—and the speakers and writers of those languages, discourses,and traditions—within and beyond the academy will never alleviatethe degree to which writing centre directors and tutors are implicated.

The first concern is, I think, at least partially true. We have somework to turn to within our field to begin to learn how to prepare ourThe Writing Center Journal 36.1 | 2017 219tutors and ourselves to encourage, support, and teach linguistic andrhetorical diversity, but not enough. We need to learn more.

chol-arship that does address theory, practice, and pedagogy of languagediversity (and its intersections with racial justice) is largely being pro-duced outside the field of writing centre studies

For over 20 years, I have been attending conference panels anddelivering my own conference papers, reading published material, andpublishing my own articles, chapters, and books that include a call forwriting centres to offer some critical account in our pedagogical practiceof racism in the teaching of tutors and tutoring in writing and to at leastconsider what might constitute an antiracist writing centre theory andpractice. And of all the concerns and objections I have heard raised inresponse to this body of work, the ones that seem to me most common,most sincere, and most troubling are these: that we don’t know how toteach and tutor linguistic and rhetorical diversity (often expressed as theclaim that to do so is impossible) and/or that we continue to fear thatto encourage and foster such diversity among our students will set themup for failure within and beyond the academy—for though we are notracists and do not subscribe to linguistic and rhetorical intolerance, theworld is and does. We need to prepare our students—particularly thosewhose mother tongues and rhetorical traditions have historically beenmarked as Other and deficient in contrast to EAE—so this reasoninggoes, to survive in a white supremacist world. To overturn, transform,or even to intervene in systemic and institutional racism (particularlyas they pertain to linguistic and rhetorical diversity) from the writingcentre is impossible.

Participating students reportedly appreciated the way their instructor allowed them to have class discussions in Arabic and write EFL activities in English (see Table 6, Item 1)

study investigated the motivational benefits of using translanguaging along this continuum.

the focus of such work has been more on learner attitudes and acceptability and less on the strategies used by instructors to motivate learners.

This phenomenon goes beyond code-switching, encompassing "any practices that draw on an individual's linguistic and semiotic repertoires," such as "reading in one language and discussing the reading in another" (p. 5).

Finally, a particular resourceis only useful to the extent that metadata make clear what types of language it includes interms of semantic content, linguistic functions, and grammatical constructions. Extractingexamples of functionally relevant language can be like a treasure hunt, and useful tokensof speech may be embedded in a nonrelated stretch of discourse or descriptive prose. Ourgoal is to develop materials and activities that promote interaction in the language.

Of the variety of revitalization activities communitymembers engage in, formal teaching is often the most visible. In addition, this may be theactivity that most needs teaching and learning materials. As such, our focus will be oncreating materials for formal teaching in a classroom setting. However, the techniquesdescribed may be used by anyone interested in using available documentation to developmaterials and activities to support revitalization.

Such documentation may formthe basis for academic descriptions such as reference grammars. Ideally, language docu-mentation projects take into account a wide range of possible end users and are conductedin collaboration with a number of stakeholders. However, for many speech communities,the reality is that what is available is far from perfect. It is just this type of situation, one inwhich available documentation of a language does not provide ideal support for revitaliza-tion, that motivates this article.

The division between ‘outsideracademic’ and ‘insider speech community member’ is often blurred as more and morespeech community members seek out the tools and training to conduct academic researchon their own heritage languages.

As there is no ‘one size fits all’ in language revitalization, we aim to provide a variety ofreal-world examples that can stimulate additional ideas for readers’ individual situations.Rather than a replicable model to be followed to the letter, we explore varied ways in whichthose we work with have integrated documentation and support for revitalization. Ourfocus on practical application is grounded in theories of second-language acquisition thatfoster communicative competence and emphasize creativity and interaction in the languageover rote memorization of forms in isolation.

For speech communities with few to no remainingfirst-language speakers, extant documentation and description may be the only availablerecord of the language. Even in communities that still have first-language speakers, anurgency to begin activities in support of revitalization leaves many community membersunable to wait for the products of a new documentation project to be complete befo

For communities that no longer have members who speak the language with native-likeconfidence, there is unlikely to be new documentation forthcoming. The current trend inwork with speakers of endangered languages is toward more collaborative models that seekto meet the needs of a wider array of stakeholders in a language project (Yamada 2007,2010;1 Czaykowska-Higgins 2009; Florey 2004; Penfield et al. 2008; Rice 2011; Stebbins2003).

The traditional triad in documentation and description of lesser studied languages is anacademic reference grammar, a word list or dictionary, and a collection of transcribed andtranslated texts of spoken language. Although these documents provide a wealth of infor-mation about a language for those with enough linguistics training to be able to decipherthem, those with more limited training may find such representations intimidatingly

As the language has no living first-language speakers, she and othersin similar situations must rely on existing documentation to develop teaching and learningmaterials. As documentation often was produced for an academic audience, it may not beimmediately useful to those most affected by language endangerment–speech communitymembers themselves. In this article, we address how documentation for an academic audi-ence might be used to support revitalization activities.

A dialect is often identified as a variety of a language spoken by a group of people.

Teachers need to be prepared for the emotions that will be evoked by the visual text. They also need to be ready to communicate with other teachers, with administrators, with parents, and with students about the importance of utilizing this medium to teach about issues related to diversity

They can also use cultural studies to make sense of how society creates categories of self and other around a host of identifiers such as race, class, gender, sexuality, home language, and religion.

Their willingness to identify with this text enables them to bridge their worlds and the film text and to embrace the text at a critical level. Rather than looking at Carl Lee and the others as fic-tional characters, they are looking at what they represent to their own lives in creating that universal plane of knowledge.

Critical Pedagogy in an Urban High School English Classroom 59 also drew upon photographs, video footage, and other artifacts to exemplify the conditions of the various schools.

Anthropologist Clifford Geertz claims that the more we study the cul-tural practices of others, the more these practices seem logical to us (2000, 16) and the more they help us to understand our own practices as equally unique and equally meaningful

Through our reading of critical theory and our work with urban adolescents we came to understand the importance of studying dominant texts to the development and mainte-nance of a revolutionary consciousness for both teachers and the students in their classroom

gain, educators and researchers look to critical pedagogy as they con-sider ways to motivate students, to develop literacies and numeracies of power, and to engage students and their communities in the struggle for edu-cational justice.

This study's findings highlight the important role of translanguaging as an effective pedagogical method for improving English language acquisition in EFL classrooms, especially at the high school level in Indonesia.

1) knowledge construction, which pertains to utilizing Translanguaging for comprehension of the subject matter; 2) classroom management, wherein educators employ translanguaging to oversee student conduct during the learning process; 3) interpersonal relationships, encompassing the teacher's initiatives to foster connections with students; and 4) personal and affective meanings, which signify the articulation of personal experiences, emotions, and sociocultural dimensions of the educator.

Baker (2001) highlighted four advantages of translanguaging in bilingual or multilingual education. Initially, it improves content comprehension by prompting students to read in one language and write in another, fostering deeper analysis and understanding. Secondly, it enhances proficiency in the less dominant language by augmenting communication and reading abilities, thereby fostering bilingualism and biliteracy. Third, it enhances home-school links, enabling kids to discuss academic content at home in their mother language, so facilitating comprehension. Fourth, it promotes classroom integration by uniting students with diverse language proficiency levels, thereby cultivating a more inclusive learning environment.

A qualitative study in South Africa examined university students' views on translanguaging academic concepts. Participants said translanguaging group conversations helped them understand complicated English. Despite speaking more than three languages, they thought translanguaging could improve reading comprehension in multilingual classrooms (Mbirimi-Hungwe, 2021). Participants saw linguistic diversity as a learning resource and were generally positive.

In regarding to the teachers' practice on translanguaging in EFL classroom, we observed seven strategies that can be discussed in this article.

translanguaging as a multifaceted discursive process in which students and teachers utilize the complete range of students' linguistic practices.

translanguaging as a pedagogical practice that involves teaching and learning through multiple languages to enhance students' knowledge, comprehension, and experiences.

In order to truly engage students’ dynamic idiolects inthe literacy classroom where texts remain relatively staticentities, reading research and instruction can explore theways in which languagers bring themselves into the compre-hension process by providing languaging opportunities withothers in relation to text and in the service of comprehen-sion. Figure 3 reflects one such configuration at the smallgroup level.

Even when a reader encounters text that might be moreopaque to the reader (i.e., less linguistic awareness to drawon), they must still make sense of it,

Building on the idea oflaminated identity (Holland & Leander, 2004) where differ-ent identities can “retain some of their original distinctive-ness” (p. 13) or “thicken” through multiple interactions,linguistic laminating is the layering or building of one’sidiolect vis-a-vis interactions with other languagers orprinted language

In other words, when two languagers commu-nicate, Languager A (La) will intentionally use linguistic fea-tures (e.g., vocabulary, grammar) that they assume are high“quality” with Languager B (Lb).

The term reflects theunique linguistic repertoires upon which the languagerdraws, how they interpret input from other languagers

When and how to use Standard English Maybe you have cousins or friends in other parts of the country, and there have been times when you have misunderstood each other? Perhaps you were trying to play a game that has different names in different parts of the country. Such local words, which are not Standard English, should not be used in formal situations such as in an exam or going for a job interview. In formal situations, it is required that you use Standard English, which also means not using slang words that you would use with your friends.

Standard English today Although language changes all the time – think of new words like Internet, Web site, and so on – we still use Standard English as the formal form of our language. Standard English is the form that is taught in schools, following set rules of grammar and spelling. Newspapers are written in Standard English and it is used by newsreaders on national television, who need to be understood by people with different local dialects, all over the country.For some people, it is not difficult to use Standard English, because it happens to be their local dialect. But for others in different parts of the country, they may have to remind themselves to follow the rules, including the sentence order and grammar of Standard English, when they are speaking or writing in a formal context. However, Standard English can be spoken in any accent, and must not be confused with talking ‘posh’.

Middle English developed at a crucial time in history, forcing the English language into some stability. One of the main reasons for this was that language started to be written down, and in 1458, the German Johannes Gutenberg invented printing, a process that William Caxton introduced to England in 1475. With all the differences and varieties in the language, Caxton had to make some choices about printing, which served to stabilize and standardize English to a certain extent. Because of where Caxton lived, he chose the east Midlands dialect, the language form used in London and around the southeast. The fixed spellings of what came to be known as Standard English, had been born, and were now, literally, set down in black and white.

An important influence then came from the Normans who invaded England with William the Conqueror in 1066. The Normans settled here permanently, bringing with them the French language and Latin. Old English was still spoken by most of the ordinary people, while French and Latin became the languages of the ruling classes, and was used for legal and religious duties.

Do you speak more than one language? Perhaps you are taught French or German at school, or English is your second language, and you speak a different tongue at home. But have you ever thought that you also speak different forms of language? For example, you probably speak to your friends in a way that you would never speak to, say, an interviewer in an interview. Hopefully, you would write differently in an exam than you would in a text message or e-mail! When we communicate with different people and in different situations, we naturally follow different sets of rules and patterns, often without having to think about the switches and transitions we are making. The most used form of English is Standard English.

Standard English The history of English is quite a story in itself, with dramatic changes and great variety. Up to about 450, British (Celtic) tribes spoke languages related to modern Welsh, Scots Gaelic, and Irish (Erse). However, the years between 450 and 1066 brought about great change. The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes invaded from North Germany in around 450, and settled on the eastern side of what is now called England. Their language, Anglo-Saxon, spread across to the west of England and developed into what we now call Old English. Many of the words we use today still relate back to Old English – but this was soon to change too. Other invasions, this time in the form of the Vikings from Scandinavia, influenced the language with new words from the Viking's language Old Norse that entered Old English between 800 and 900.

Teachers at Harlem Prep sought out the same goals during the late 1960s and early 1970s before these strategies were codified in the academy. However, unlike CRP today, these strategies were employed by noncredentialed faculty and in a noisy, open-space class-room in one of the country’s most politically charged moments

Edmund Gordon of Columbia University’s Teachers College in his assess-ment of the school (Gordon, 1972, p.10). Essentially, Harlem Prep teachers crafted lessons and shaped subject matter around the needs of the student because “whatever the word ‘relevant’ meant to the student, the [teaching] staff of Harlem Prep had to bring about a change in attitude so that learning could take on the quality of joy

individuals who sought to make a difference in their communities—Humphries was one of the first Harlem Prep graduates—found their way to Harlem Prep as dedicated educators. Finally, three White Catholic nuns from Manhattanville College, dressed in full habit attire, also held a large presence in the school educating students on various subjects.

As previously noted, teachers had various levels of expertise, with credentials ranging from those with advanced degrees to, more commonly, those with little to no teaching experience, including recent Harlem Prep alumni.

Campbell admittedly “floundering” professionally, encouraged him to interview for a teaching job there.

Harlem Prep became a prominent community effort that sought to reach the increasing youth population who desired

school’s constant lack of resources and diverse population did not hinder it from sending hundreds of non-traditional students to many highly selective colleges nationwid

For half a centurynow no human hand has touched them. May he rest in peace!

De Grâve

Once more I ask you, please, will younot go back? No? If not, then I must leave you. But first I must doeverything I can for you.”

Throwing them to one side I found the stones which earlier I hadtaken down from the wall. Quickly I began to build the wall again,

f oRTunaTo had huRT me athousand times and I had sufferedquietly

This, I knew, wasenough to make it certain that they would all leave as soon as my backwas turned

A m o n t i l l a d o

C a s k

Building on the two examples that we have given,in this section, we provide ideas for teachers inter-ested in sustaining their own students’ communitylanguages through code-meshing while also growingstudents’ competencies in DAE. Specifically, we dis-cuss the use of mentor texts, remixing monolingualtexts using code-meshing, and principles of assess-ing students’ code-meshed writing.

Over the past decade, educators have paid more at-tention to multilingual students’ translanguagingpractices (how bilingual and bidialectal studentsdynamically move across and among languages)and how teachers may recognize and honor stu-dents’ dynamic language practices in the classroom(Baker-Bell, 2013; O. García & Kleifgen, 2010; Pacheco& Miller, 2016). As noted by Pacheco and Miller andby García and Kleifgen, translanguaging pedagogiesencourage students to recruit all of their linguis-tic resources in literacy tasks, rather than separat-ing languages. Indeed, recent research has shownthat such pedagogies can support students in morecomplex literacy practices and cognitive tasks thanthey could accomplish monolingually

Young and Martinez (2011) described code-meshing broadly as the blending of minoritizedlanguages with DAE, encompassing both oral andwritten language practices. Others, however, haveunderstood code-meshing more narrowly as a writ-ing practice in which languag-es are intentionally integrated,particularly within sentences(Canagarajah, 2011). Althoughboth understandings have mer-it, we focus on the latter giv-en our emphasis on writingin this article. Nevertheless,both of these understandingsof code-meshing differ fromcode-switching.

The code-meshing used by Jacobi, Ms. Raniya, andAna and Clarita disrupts the common assumptionthat AAL, Spanish, and DAE are completely separateor incompatible semantic and syntactic systems.

Ana and Clarita also wove more Spanish, includ-ing entire sentences, into their narrative as well asSpanish and English speech descriptors, such as“responded Tío Germán” (p. 1), “shouted el representa-dor” (p. 2), and “Se preguntó Sofía entre ella misma” (p. 3;“Sofía asked herself”)

These terms are difficult to translatein culturally meaningful ways, so presenting themin Spanish adds to the cultural authenticity ofthe text.

Garza’s code-meshing is targeted in that virtual-ly all instances involve substituting Spanish nounsfor English ones and surrounding those words withcontextual clues for the benefit of monolingualEnglish readers.

During these conferences, Ms. Raniya also drewstudents’ attention to the fact that she was writingdown their words. She reread the entire card backto them, sometimes pointing to the words as sheread them, and asked them if they liked how thecard sounded. Students enjoyed seeing and hearingtheir words, true to the way they were spoken. Ms.Raniya also took the opportunity to teach studentsconventions and show how she would add punctua-tion to the writing when necessary.

Jacobi’s language choices also indicated an aware-ness of audience, potentially on both Jacobi’s part andMs. Raniya’s. Because the card was for Jacobi’s moth-er, it made sense for him to use the language that hewould use with his mother.

Ms. Raniya’s choice tohonor students’ use of AAL by writing their wordsjust as they were spoken came out of her experi-ences in graduate school.

writing Mother’s Day cardswas one example of how Ms. Raniya created spacefor multilingual students’ code-meshing in her lit-eracy instruction.

Although multilingual students’ writing andcode-meshing have been the focus of recent research(Gillanders, 2018; Miller & Rowe, 2014; Soltero-González& Butvilofsky, 2016), teachers may be less familiarwith how to integrate code-meshing into writing in-struction.

In contrast to code-switching, code-meshing in-volves the intentional incorporation of more thanone language within writing to “exploit and blendthose differences” (

In other words, code-switching risks forcinga binary in which both languages cannot coexistwithin school contexts.

This is despite the fact that languagevarieties such as AAL are used in a wide array ofcontexts, both formal and informal

Code-meshing, how-ever, can help disrupt these power relationships.

One result of deficit views andmisconceptions regarding lan-guage is that classrooms becomelinguistic sieves that filter out alllanguages except DAE

Similarly, nega-tive views of immigration fromplaces such as Mexico, Africa, andthe Middle East accompany deficitviews of their languages

The pervasiveness of deficit assumptions regard-ing language varieties other than DAE is evidenceof the inseparability of language and power.

Dominant ideologies about language are so deep-ly rooted that many linguistically diverse speak-ers carry deficit assumptions regarding their ownlanguage

Similarly, multilingual students are often subjectedto subtractive pedagogies because of similar deficitassumptions regarding bilingualism and students’home languages

This is despite more than half a cen-tury of linguistic research documenting AAL asboth systematic and rule governed

This myth is sustained in part by negative soci-etal images of blackness and black cultures and bycommon misconceptions of AAL as slang or incor-rect English

In conclusion, the use of programs that indicate plagiarism percentages (based on the concept of plagiarism), similarities, or AI, without prior analysis of the manuscript's quality, represents an editorial attitude based on new technology guidelines, which do not determine the quality of manuscripts, and should not be a condition that prevents the submission of research papers to reviewers who analyze the quality of the report. Jesus A. Mosquera

AI can assist researchers in the manuscript writing process, improving writing style and language, but not in the interpretation, analysis, and logical conclusions of the results found, which must be carried out by the researchers.

The correct use of AI can be beneficial for scientific publications, provided that natural intelligence establishes the order of what is reported by the AI

"Plagiarism is defined as presenting another person's work as your own, whether it's text, ideas, data, or images, without proper attribution. This includes self-plagiarism, where an author reuses their own previously published work without proper citation"

The editorial committees of various scientific journals have established plagiarism, similarities to other works, and the use of artificial intelligence (AI) as rejection criteria for research papers, without prior expert review.

Yann Braga | Storybook Vitest | ViteConf 2025

Yann Braga | Storybook Vitest | ViteConf 2025

Sodo (hay Số Đỏ) là nền tảng cá cược trực tuyến hàng đầu tại Việt Nam, chuyên cung cấp các dịch vụ thể thao, casino, xổ số, game bài đa dạng. Với giao diện thân thiện, tỷ lệ cược cao, cùng khuyến mãi khủng và hệ thống bảo mật tối ưu, Sodo thu hút hàng triệu người chơi. Đặc biệt, nạp/rút tiền siêu tốc chỉ 3 phút, hỗ trợ 24/7 giúp trải nghiệm mượt mà – an toàn – đẳng cấp.

By using Artificial Intelligence based technology in an effectiveand ethical way, being supported by teachers and policymakers, students at theFaculty of Economic Sciences, University of Oradea can acquire the necessarycommunication skills in Business English in order to be successful in today’sinterconnected world

Our research, undergone through semi-structured interview, inthe qualitative phase, as an instrument for data collection, has revealed the fact that42% of the interviewed students use Artificial Intelligence in improving BusinessEnglish communication skills

In order to examine and get a clear image of the usage of Artificial Intelligence inlearning foreign languages, having clear reference to Business English, we havechosen key informants that could provide relevant information, being chosenfollowing the inclusion criteria: 1. Economics students who have English selectionexam scores above 80 points; 2. Economics students who have taken Introductionto Business English Course during the first semester.

The appearance of Artificial Intelligence has revolutionized not only the students’traditional methods of learning but also the teachers’ teaching methods, bringing newideas and new opportunities to all aspects of the teaching/learning process

Therefore, this study comes as ahelpful perspective regarding the students’ opinion in using Artificial Intelligencebased technology and how they can help in developing their communication skills.

The lack of confidence andanxiety about making errors are only two of the main reasons to take intoconsideration when talking about communication in Business English.

Business English is a complex field which requires a lot of practice in order to bemastered. The focus of the course is communication. Since the students nowadayshave proved to be digital literate from an early age, the use of the artificialintelligence-based tools in teaching have shown an increased interest in the learningprocess

e authors want to research how today’s technologyinfluences the development of communication skills in Business English students

Another notable advancement in this review is the incorporation of research addressing the ethical and fairness concerns surrounding AI in MH care. The earlier review identified these as key areas of concern, particularly regarding algorithmic bias and transparency.

They advocate the development of interpretable AI models that provide clinicians with clear reasoning behind the generated recommendations,

he findings continue to highlight the promise of AI technologies in addressing missed care, alleviating clinicians' workloads, improving diagnostic accuracy, and addressing workforce challenges. However, the newly reviewed studies bring further insights and raise further complexities, particularly concerning the real-world implementation, ethical considerations, and the need for more rigorous evaluations of AI systems in diverse MH contexts.

Ultimately, the research articles convey a sense of cautious optimism about CDSS's potential to transform MH care. They highlight the opportunities presented by data-driven insights while acknowledging the importance of addressing ethical concerns and prioritising patient well-being. The articles suggest that, by carefully navigating these complexities, the field can harness the power of technology to deliver more personalised, effective, and equitable MH care for all.

Beyond technical challenges, the articles also underscore the importance of addressing ethical considerations, such as data privacy and the potential for bias.

While the potential benefits of CDSS are widely acknowledged, the research articles also address the challenges and ethical considerations associated with their development and implementation. A key concern is ensuring the accuracy, fairness, and clinical utility of these systems.

There is a clear emphasis on moving beyond traditional methods of diagnosis and treatment towards more data-driven approaches.

These studies collectively emphasise that, while AI has significant potential in MH care, its integration must be carefully managed through ongoing research, collaboration, and a balanced approach that combines technological innovation with workforce development.

In another study, a novel multimodal, multitask learning model was directly applied as an intervention to predict rehabilitation outcomes for individuals with severe mental illness

ne study utilised this model to identify high-risk patients and recommended preventative interventions for clinicians, with a specific emphasis on refining decision thresholds through decision curve analysis to optimise sensitivity while minimising the risk of overtreatment (Liu et al. 2024).

Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) for MH, including those incorporating AI, show promise in improving patient care. Overall, the results of this subsequent literature review highlight the potential of CDSS to improve MH care but emphasise the importance of rigorous evaluation, debiasing efforts, and ongoing monitoring to ensure fairness, accuracy, and clinical utility.

However, the importance of maintaining clinician oversight remains a central theme, ensuring that AI tools enhance, rather than replace, human judgement.

This updated review revisits the original research aims (Higgins et al. 2023), with a particular focus on how AI can complement and augment clinicians' decision-making processes. The findings highlight the potential of AI-driven clinical decision support systems (CDSS) to enable clinicians to make more informed, accurate, and timely decisions, ultimately reducing instances of missed care.

Healthcare systems now face the challenge of integrating these powerful tools into clinical workflows while maintaining the highest standards of care, medical ethics, and community benefit.

The rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have significantly expanded the technological capabilities available to healthcare systems, particularly with the emergence of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT.

While AI-driven CDSS holds significant promise for optimising MH care, sustainable improvements require the integration of AI solutions with systemic workforce enhancements.

New evidence highlights the importance of clinician trust, system transparency, and ethical concerns, including algorithmic bias and equity, particularly for vulnerable populations. Advancements in AI model complexity, such as multimodal learning systems, demonstrate improved predictive capacity but underscore the ongoing challenge of balancing interpretability with innovation.

Following the intuitive distinction between knowledge and understanding, we argue that understanding is the superior epistemic aim for higher education because it constitutes a cognitive achievement of the sort we seek in education — proof an individual is developing as a cognitive agent, able to draw upon cognitive effort and skill to solve problems.

The student memorizing the answers to math problems is an example of knowledge without understanding.

In both cases, the cognitive skills on display are memorization and recall. Both students might have knowledge (or the appearance of it) at that moment, but the assessment does little to gauge whether they understand the material.

Given the ease with which students can acquire, or appear to acquire, knowledge via ChatGPT, higher education needs a revised epistemic aim,20 specifically one that constitutes a cognitive achievement — signaling an agent's cognitive development via effort and skill — and that is not easily undermined or acquired by using generative AI tools.

AI panic: we aim for students to develop as cognitive agents who can demonstrate their understanding, but what we demand of them via assessments is only knowledge, something we now fear they can feign (but never acquire) with the use of AI. Simply put, if ChatGPT can complete our assessments, they are poor assessments to begin with, i.e., they are not an adequate gauge of the cognitive development we aim for in education.

Consider two students taking a math quiz. They encounter the problem, “What is the square root of 9?” For whatever reason, one student opted to memorize the answers to specific math problems in case they came up in a test, while another focused on learning the mathematical operation. Both give the same correct answer to the question, but one has mere knowledge, as far as they know the answer to the problem — the square root of nine is three — but the other has understanding. They arrive at the answer by completing the operation. Now, we ask, which student has a better grasp of the square root of nine, or math in general?

All things equal, the student who understands the mathematical operation could complete the square root function for other numbers. Their understanding spans beyond the knowledge of a particular fact.

The cognitive success in one case is the result of memory and luck, the other a result of cognitive effort and agency in combining what one knows with one's understanding of the game of chess, the other player's moves, the timing, flow, and strategy of play, and one's objective. Drawing on the network of relationships between these pieces of knowledge and skills to successfully win a chess game does not merely demonstrate that one knows the rules and strategy needed to play, but that one understands these and can apply them to the game.

Given the inevitable use of generative AI, like ChatGPT, on campus, we maintain that understanding is the superior epistemic aim for education.

Rather than immediately reaching for practical solutions to address current fears of ChatGPT on campus, we argue that campus leaders, instructors, and taskforce members should first pause and revisit what it is they hope to achieve through education, lest their responses lead further away from guarding what is actually at stake in generative AI use in higher education. We hope to have provided a roadmap for examining the educational aims at the heart of the debate over tackling ChatGPT in education that is insightful and will be instructive for campus leaders in their pursuit of a valuable and viable response to generative AI on campus.

The threat of students using ChatGPT highlights the primary pitfalls of knowledge as an epistemic aim of education, and by extension the object of assessment, and bolsters the case for pursuing understanding. And, in reviewing the advantages of understanding as an epistemic aim, we have revealed a pathway for responding to the threat of generative AI on campus. Adopting understanding as higher education's epistemic aim over knowledge both mandates and allows for curriculum revision in favor of assessments that can be completed with the assistance of ChatGPT, but not via ChatGPT alone.

AI tools cannot give you understanding primarily because it is not something that is simply received or acquired without some effort from the agent. Thus, an essay prompt that can easily be answered by AI is assessing for knowledge, not understanding. In other words, if generative AI can complete the assessment for the student, without the required cognitive effort on the part of the student, then that is a bad assessment that is aimed at assessing knowledge, not understanding. In the case of the essay, it is a bad essay prompt if ChatGPT can convincingly complete it without any input, fine tuning, or correction from the student.

Educators naturally fear that generative AI tools like ChatGPT put student effort and cognitive achievement at risk because they can be used to pass assessments;

While understanding may be more difficult to gauge and to confirm whether students have it, we can design assessments for students to demonstrate it — and often, in doing so, ensure that they acquire it.

Generative AI tools like ChatGPT, we suggest, merely bring to the fore what has likely been an issue for some time: that existing assessments do not gauge students' cognitive achievements.

This is the sort of cognitive ability we aim to develop through education. We seek cognitive effort, development, and achievement. In theory, educational assessments gauge our progress toward this aim, i.e., whether students are developing as cognitive agents. Too often, though, assessments measure mere knowledge, not understanding.

If you can draw upon the knowledge that you do have, and make connections between these pieces of information, you can generally make up for the gap in your knowledge, i.e., that you do not know where the train station is in this particular city. Solving this problem by drawing on the network of things you do know is a cognitive achievement: you do not simply have knowledge in this case, rather, you display cognitive effort and skill to infer and make connections between what you do know to make up for what you do not. You draw upon and demonstrate your understanding.

Following the intuitive distinction between knowledge and understanding, we argue that understanding is the superior epistemic aim for higher education because it constitutes a cognitive achievement of the sort we seek in education — proof an individual is developing as a cognitive agent, able to draw upon cognitive effort and skill to solve problems.

Certainly, one used ChatGPT to generate their summary. Still, any student could just as easily have watched a YouTube video, found a study guide with content summaries online, or read a Wikipedia page on photosynthesis to acquire theirs. Both the ChatGPT summary and lecture-slide summary will likely pass the assessment. The students have both demonstrated knowledge of photosynthesis. It is not knowledge they compiled through effort or skill, or that we can guarantee will persist beyond the context of the assessment, but they demonstrate at that moment that they possess knowledge.

This renders our assessments less able to gauge students' development as cognitive agents. Even when students retain information acquired from ChatGPT after the assessment, simply possessing knowledge of a course subject does not confirm that their education was successful, regardless of whether the knowledge was acquired in class or through ChatGPT.

In passing the assessment, it appears the student learned something, i.e., that they acquired and retained information through cognitive effort and intellectual skill. But, if they used generative AI, or if it is possible that they did, our assessments are no longer reliable indicators of students' cognitive effort and development as cognitive agents. We essentially get a false positive that they have developed.

Accordingly, a reasonable institutional response would be to revise academic honor codes to include specific clauses on using generative AI like ChatGPT. Higher education institutions might also lean into educating students in intellectual virtues, stressing the importance of academic integrity. Both responses are valuable and justifiable reactions to the threat of pervasive AI use on campus. However, these responses are only sufficient if student integrity is the sole concern.

While discourse in higher education surrounding generative AI focuses on the need for an adequate response to the tool's use on campus, we argue that an adequate response requires examining what exactly in education is at stake in AI use in higher education.

While some argue that the tool essentially is the new calculator — inevitable and necessarily worth incorporating — others classify it as an existential threat to the future of higher education.

Its ability to synthesize and summarize information in approachable prose can make prepping for an exam easier and less time-consuming than reviewing multiple weeks' worth of course material.

They can answer questions, produce outlines, compose poems, write computer code, and generate argumentative essays that pass for college-level writing. The generated responses are unique: they are not plagiarized — copied directly from a human-written text — nor are they recycled or boilerplate (e.g., using the same prompt can produce distinct responses).4 This makes detecting ChatGPT-generated text (products of generative AI) difficult, though some have found its sentence patterns to be complex and varied than human prose.

We conclude that the advent and continued advancement of AI tools bolsters the case for understanding over knowledge as an aim of education. We argue that the epistemological distinction between the two is informative and directive in articulating what is at stake in AI use in education and what might constitute a strategic response.

We propose that generative AI tools like ChatGPT threaten higher education's commitment to pursuing cognitive achievement. Then, we argue that generative AI tools undercut knowledge-based learning goals and corresponding assessments because knowledge is easily acquired and demonstrated without the corresponding cognitive effort and achievements.

A primary concern is that students may use it to cheat on exams and essays.

This new type of generative artificial intelligence technology (generative AI) can produce written prose that passes for basic college-level writing. Since then, workshops, institutional task forces, and committees have been created across the higher education system to address generative AI use on campus.

Although AI can enhance and aid students in developing understanding, it can neither provide them with understanding nor give the appearance of understanding without student effort.

They propose that ChatGPT, rather than threatening student cognitive development and effort, reveals a serious flaw in higher education's current aims and assessments: they are directed at knowledge, not understanding.

Margaret Kohn and Kavita Reddy. Colonialism. In Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman, editors, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, spring 2023 edition, 2023. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/colonialism/ (visited on 2023-12-10).

What if social media sites were governed by their users instead of by shareholders (e.g., governed by the subjugated instead of the colonialists)?

ndidates i snd provide were able to describe two forms of teacher-student interactions ind provi ons general description of student-student interaction. Candidate: p teacher—student interactions as (1) behavior-oriented and (2) int inter- at facilita $ dent responses. Three out of 19 candidates desc b d actions th ted tu. r1be teacher—student i i os nteractions as “disciplinarian,’“ : narian,” “enforcing th ” ee e rules” and “enfor C- ing the rules set.” These candidates were described as having a d i edge of teacher—student interactions. Ba cevcloping nowt Four ou i ons vor 2 canes atendsd to specific student-student interactions. ene candicate nore’ aia s Me ents aided each other as the practitioner walked veleatateneed wre of ng for answer to the warm-up question; however, whe analogies ood ceamole a me language, the ability to clarify directions and ane anges xamples used by students were not described. There were no questions that students or the practitioner asked, analogi

Merriam-Webster. Definition of CAPITALISM. December 2023. URL: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism (visited on 2023-12-10).

Catherine Shoard. Stellan Skarsgård: ‘My tips for fatherhood? Don’t lie. Even about Santa Claus’. The Guardian, November 2021. URL: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/nov/25/stellan-skarsgard-my-tips-for-fatherhood-dont-lie-even-about-santa-claus (visited on 2023-12-10).

In other words, capitalism is a system where: Individuals or corporations own businesses These business owners make what they want and set their own prices. They compete with other businesses to convince customers to buy their products. These business owners then hire wage laborers [s2] at predetermined rates for their work, while the owners get the excess business profits or losses.

nshi irecti cal knoll p. The directive coach has speci T-appr pecial knowled and his job is to transfer that knowledge to the coachee. While the . relationship is respectful, it is not equal. In con ilitati cae a to ae coaches who set their expertise aside when working achers, the directive coach’s ex ise i pertise is at the heart of thi i approach. Since their job is t ctnay ton o make sure teachers | de something eect earn the correct way to , directive coaches tell teachers wh at do to, someti oe ' imes model an me observe teachers, and provide constructive feedback to teachers ey can implement the new practice with fidelity. Directi Fach we paces work from the assumption that the teachers they are Rivhy e ‘ O not Know how to use the practices they are learning, which henerally a ane coached. They also assume that teaching strategies uld be implemented with fidelity, which i : way in ea y, which is to say, in the same y ch classroom. Thus, the goal of the directive coach is to ensure fidelity to a proven model, not adaptation of th i of children or strengths of a teacher ENE NGENSS The best directi a neath coaches are excellent communicators who listen to their 7 . . Pa Fa rene understanding using effective questions, and sensitively ee’s understanding or lack of understanding. Since the goal Chapter 1 | What Does It Mean to Improve? 11

Sara Wachter-Boettcher. Technically wrong: sexist apps, biased algorithms, and other threats of toxic tech. October 2018. URL: https://orbiscascade-washington.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01ALLIANCE_UW/8iqusu/alma99329653362401451.

aching Logs The following logs can be used with individuals, teams, or pairs of teachers. As is the case with any tool that is provided in this book, you are encouraged to adapt and adjust these logs to suit your needs (Figure 1.6).

As a social media user, we hope you are informed about things like: how social media works, how they influence your emotions and mental state, how your data gets used or abused, strategies in how people use social media, and how harassment and spam bots operate.

oaching, collaborating, and consulting each a ; a Pu i ose to the teacher, the institution, or awe € ty ae og place in transactions devoted to only one of : . functions ituati however, that ca j ime. There are situations, : skill transition to another function. There are no mee nil to guide the coach, but there are some prerequisite con:

ognitive Coaches are committed to learning. They continually resist complacency, and they share both the humility and the pride of admitting that there is more to learn. They dedicate themselves to serving others, and they set aside their ego needs, devoting their energies to enhancing others’ resourcefulness. They commit their time and energies to make a difference by enhancing interdepen- dence, illuminating situations from varied perspectives, and striv- ing to bring consciousness to intentions, thoughts, feelings, and behaviors and their effect on others and the environment.

Accordingly, one of the teacher’s principal roles is to support, or scaf- fold, students to acquire knowledge and skills that they cannot learn on their own but can learn with targeted assistance. A teacher can provide sev- eral kinds of assistance, as can peers: Teachers can provide a model to show a learner how something is done, or they can demonstrate a process or skill both physically and by talking aloud about how an expert thinks. A teacher can also assist by breaking up a task into smaller units or by reorganizing the sequence of a complex task.

extract of cantharides,9 in powder, to the amount of eight or ten grains, warninghim against taking it except in very small doses

He asked for what these Orientals are ever seeking,

I know that Europeans are singularly versed in such knowledge,” rejoined he

Are orphans of the earthly love and heavenly:       Let them weep ! let them weep! They look up, with their pale and sunken faces,       And their look is dread to see,                                                                                     150 For they think you see their angels in their places,       With eyes meant for Deity;— “How long,” they say, “how long, O cruel nation,    Will you stand, to move the world, on a child’s heart, —

“But, no !” say the children, weeping faster,       ” He is speechless as a stone ; And they tell us, of His image is the master       Who commands us to work on.

” Two words, indeed, of praying we remember ;       And at midnight’s hour of harm, — ‘Our Father,’ looking upward in the chamber,       We say softly for a charm.

For, all day, we drag our burden tiring,       Through the coal-dark, underground —

“True,” say the children, “it may happen       That we die before our time! Little Alice died last year her grave is shapen       Like a snowball, in the rime.                                                                             40 We looked into the pit prepared to take her —    Was no room for any work in the close clay:

But the young, young children, O my brothers,       Do you ask them why they stand Weeping sore before the bosoms of their mothers,       In our happy Fatherland?

The young lambs are bleating in the meadows ;    The young birds are chirping in the nest; The young fawns are playing with the shadows;    The young flowers are blowing toward the west— But the young, young children, O my brothers,       They are weeping bitterly!

They are leaning their young heads against their mothers, —

I trust not to thy phantom bliss,

简而言之就是数组实现了 IntoIterator 特征，Rust 通过 for 语法糖，自动把实现了该特征的数组类型转换为迭代器（你也可以为自己的集合类型实现此特征）

bullish

ery single teacher can be developed and every single teacher can grow,” she says. “As a result of growing every teacher, we’ll be growing and supporting every student. That way we can ensure that every one of our students has the best teacher standing in front of them.

the key weakness in China’s consumption structure lies in services.

China’s share of service consumption still needs to increase, and the representation of service-sector firms among listed companies remains noticeably low

Since 2020, consumption growth in the A-share data has become more closely aligned with macro growth.

For a few categories—most notably automobiles and beverages—the relative growth performance of listed companies strengthened after 2020 compared with the macro benchmark.

During economic downturns, households rely more heavily on essential consumption, while in periods of recovery this dependence diminishes.

At the same time, although consumption in the grain & food category and the furniture category also weakened relative to the macro benchmark, their underlying dynamics differ: grain & food exhibits a clear counter-cyclical pattern, whereas furniture is strongly influenced by the real estate cycle.

Both ethics and law are normative frameworks, i.e. theydefine how people ought to act. Ethics and law are oftencomplementary; for example, a legal decree might requirea person to do what is ethically required (such as refrainfrom harming others). However, something can be legaland yet conflict with ethical standards