A Comparison of Students’ Performances Using Audio Only and Video Media Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Listening is a very crucial skill to be learnt in second language classroom because it is essential for the development of spoken language proficiency (Hamouda, 2013). The aim of this study is to investigate the significant differences in terms of students’ performance when using traditional (audio-only) method and video media method. The data of this study were collected by giving students the same two sets of questions in pre-test and post-test. The data were then analysed with paired-sample t-test by using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Based on the results attained, it was found that the majority of the students obtained higher marks when using video media method compared to audio only method. Hence, it is recognised that by using video as one of the assessment tools will help students to perform better due to the use of authentic, meaningful and real-life situation contexts and language. Therefore, instructors are advised to use more authentic texts and materials when it comes to teaching and assessing listening skills in second language (L2) classroom.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".