Effects of Audiovisual, Audio, and Visual Presentations on EFL Learners’ Writing Skill
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
This study was designed to find whether three different presentations, i.e. audiovisual, visual and audio, affect EFL learners’ writing ability. First, before doing the main research, the researcher piloted her study. Then, 45 students, both males and females, aged from 23 to 38, were selected randomly out of advanced level EFL learners at an English Institute in Shiraz, Iran and they were also divided into three groups of 15. Three documentaries, i.e. stress, superstition and nature tech, were selected (www.YouTube.com) as audiovisual materials. The texts of the very documentaries were used as the visual or reading materials and the listening forms of the same documentaries were applied as the audio materials. The participants were asked to write about the topics once before each mode of presentation and after. The writings were scored out of nine based on IELTS writing criteria by two raters. Inter-rater reliability was calculated between each set of scores. One-way ANOVA, matched t-test and the effect size were used. The results revealed that the audiovisual group performed better than the audio group and the audio group performed better than the visual group in their post-writings.
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 | 0.000 | 0.047 |
| 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