An experimental study of two approaches to teaching speech in terms of reducing speech anxiety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hypotheses on which this study is based state that a group receiving an encountering approach to speech training will register a greater reduction in speech anxiety than a group receiving the conventional approach to speech training; the conventional group will show a greater reduction in speech anxiety than a control group that received no speech training. The encountering approach consisted of encountering exercises, role-playing, creative drama, and discussion techniques. The conventional approach consisted of formalized speechmaking in front of an audience. Subjects were 47 grade 12 students enrolled in the English 12 course at Britannia High School in Vancouver. Three groups were randomly selected and each was assigned one of the experimental conditions. The experimenter met with the two treatment groups for fifteen one hour sessions and taught the encounter approach to one group and the conventional approach to the other. An introspective measure was administered to each group in the first and last session. Two trained observers rated each subject in terms of the overt manifestations of speech anxiety in their final speeches. An analysis of covariance was made involving the results on the introspective measure (MAACL). The Kruskal-Wallace test was used in comparing the observational scores (TORCL). Both hypotheses were rejected. The results of the introspective measure were not significant. However, in comparing the results of the observer scores, a significant difference was found between the encounter group and the other two groups. There was no significant difference between the conventional and control groups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".