Oral Communicative Competence of Primary School Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oral communicative competence enables speakers of a language to interact effectively with each other. Oral communicative competence includes a wide semantic field since the oral expression is a way of expression for the thought and it provides feedback and develops by means of the linguistic function (Vygotsky, 1992; Piaget, 1983a, 1983b; Pinker, 2003). English communicative competence is based on the use of the language as a tool of communication, both oral and written, of representation, of interpretation and of reality comprehension. This investigation aims to analyse the oral communicative competence in English of students who have finished the stage of Primary Education. It also tries to know if the center where students study, the students’ gender, the attitude towards the English language and attendance to private lessons increase the oral communicative competence. The sample was intentional and stratified (rural-urban and ordinary-bilingual). It is composed by 265 students and the instrument is a questionnaire provided with reliability and validity. The results show high levels of competence, higher than expected, and with light differences that favor the girls and the urban bilingual schools in the acquisition of the oral communicative competence in English.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".