The Effect of Visual and Auditory Input Enhancement on Vocabulary Acquisition of Iranian EFL University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>This study was an attempt to investigate the effect of input enhancement instruction on vocabulary acquisition among Iranian university students. Moreover, the possible effect of two kinds of input enhancement (i.e., auditory and visual) was examined. To this end, 75 Iranian university students, majoring English language Teaching at Applied Science and Technology of Kurdistan University, Iran, were randomly selected. The method used in this study was quantitative research and the true experimental design. One experimental group received vocabulary instruction via visual input enhancement, and the other experimental group was taught vocabulary via auditory input enhancement. After administering the posttest, the dada was analyzed by one-way ANOVA. The findings revealed that both auditory and visual input enhanced instruction had a significant effect on the vocabulary development of Iranian EFL students. In addition, comparing the efficacy of two types of instruction, the results indicated that the effect of either visual or auditory input enhancement for both experimental EFL university students were fairly the same in Iranian EFL educational setting.</p>
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 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".