Listening Skill At Tertiary Level: A Reflection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study focuses on the real scenario of listening skill of learners at the tertiary level in private universities in our country and through this attempt we have tried to find out the reasons of poor listening skills of the learners. At secondary and higher secondary level, where Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is in practice, writing and speaking are given maximum importance. Since learners' listening skill is not assessed like other skills, it remains unattended through out their academic career. The scenario of poor listening skill of the learners continues with the same negligence even at the tertiary level. Giving importance to the development of this skill, the study has been done throughout questionnaire survey both from students' and teachers' point of view. The survey result has been analyzed and some suggestions are given regarding the matter. Key words: Listening Skill, Tertiary level, Private UniversitiesDOI: 10.3329/dujl.v2i3.4144 The Dhaka University Journal of Linguistics: Vol.2 No.3 February, 2009 Page: 69-90
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".