The effectiveness of verbal self‐guidance as a transfer of training intervention: its impact on presentation performance, self efficacy and anxiety
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We developed a verbal self‐guidance (VSG) training program as a transfer of training intervention (i.e., an intervention designed to enhance the application and usage of skills learned in a training session post‐training). We then assessed the impact of this training on presentation performance, self‐efficacy (i.e., task‐specific confidence) and anxiety. Results indicated that participants trained in VSG (n = 33) had significantly higher self‐efficacy concerning their presentation performance relative to those in the comparison group (n = 32), who took part in a lecture and discussion activity. Self‐efficacy was significantly and positively correlated with presentation performance such that self‐efficacy increased as performance increased. Anxiety was shown to be negatively and significantly correlated with presentation performance and self‐efficacy such that anxiety increased as performance and self‐efficacy decreased. Overall, the results suggest that verbal self‐guidance is an effective training technique for helping students with presentations.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it