Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the main concerns of language learners is how to improve their speaking proficiency in general and different components of speaking proficiency such as fluency, accuracy, accent, vocabulary, comprehension, and communication in particular. Accordingly, the present research attempts to investigate the effect of listening to different TV programs on improving different components of speaking proficiency. To achieve this purpose, a sample speaking test was given to twenty language learners as a pre-test. During the study, the participants had exposure to different programs from TV. After a period of three months, a post-test was administered. Then, the scores of each component in the pre-test were compared with that of the post-test. The result showed that the use of vocabulary as a component of speaking proficiency improves more. On the contrary, accuracy improves less than the other components. Key words: Speaking proficiency; Improve; Vocabulary; Accuracy Resume: L'une des preoccupations principales des apprenants de langue est de savoir comment ameliorer l'expression orale en general et maitriser de differents composants de la competence de l’expression orale comme la fluidite, la precision, l'accent, le vocabulaire, la comprehension et la communication en particulier. En consequence, la presente recherche tente d'etudier l'effet d'ecouter des emissions de differents programmes a la tele sur l'amelioration de la maitrise de differents elements de l'expression orale. Pour atteindre ce but, un test de langue a ete donnee a vingt apprenants de langue comme un pre-test. Au cours de l'etude, les participants ont ete exposes a de differents programmes de la television. Apres une periode de trois mois, un post-test a ete donne. Ensuite, les scores de chaque composant dans le pre-test ont ete compares avec ceux du post-test. Le resultat a montre que l’un des elements de competence orale, l'utilisation du vocabulaire, s'ameliore le plus. Au contraire, la precision s'ameliore moins que les autres composants. Mots-cles: Competence de l’expression orale; Ameliorer; Vocabulaire; Precision
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".