Vocabulary Teaching in Foreign Language via Audiovisual Method Technique of Listening and Following Writing Scripts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective is hereby study is to compare the effects of conventional and audiovisual methods on learning efficiency and success of retention with regard to vocabulary teaching in foreign language. Research sample consists of 21 undergraduate and 7 graduate students studying at Department of French Language Teaching, Kazim Karabekir Faculty of Education, Ataturk University. The methodology applied herein is experimental research. Two groups of 14 were randomly established, one as experimental and one as control group. Experimental group underwent audiovisual method, while conventional vocabulary teaching method, still applied in schools, was applied on the control group. The data was gathered from instructive videos equipped with pedagogical references on the website of TV5 monde, under the title “Enseigner le francais avec Tv 5 Monde” [Learn French with TV5 Monde]. Two practices, namely, “2001-2011: faut-il encore avoir peur du terrorisme” [2001-2011: Should we still fear terrorism?], “guerres et conflits: vers une privatisation générale?” [Wars & conflicts: Towards an overall privatisation?], both at C1 education level, have been selected. Success rates in research data were found out by means of percentage calculations. The resulting values are analysed and interpreted through descriptive and content analysis methodology. According to research outputs, the learners are more successful in efficiency of learning and retention via audiovisual method than through conventional method. Simultaneous action of multiple sense organs and high motivation during learning process are considered as the principal reasons for such success.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".