The Effectiveness of the Use of Animation in Arabic Language Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Implementation of animation as an Arabic language teaching aid is an innovation in creating an atmosphere that can influence student achievement. This study aimed to identify the effectiveness of the use of animation in Arabic language teaching and learning among diploma students at Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin (UniSZA), Terengganu, Malaysia. A total of 66 diploma students were randomly selected and divided into experimental group (n = 33) and control group (n = 33). The results obtained from the data collected from pre-and post-test for each group were analyzed using t-test in SPSS version 17.0. The results showed a significant difference of (t = 8789, df = 64, p <0.05) between the achievement of the experimental group and the control group in the post test. The difference in mean score of the experimental group and the control group was 33.03. This shows that there is significant improvement in Arabic language according to the groups. The difference prove that the use of animation in learning sessions contribute to the achievement of students in the Arabic language. This study advocate the idea that animation applications can be integrated as part of language teaching aid to positively improve student achievement, classroom learning environment and student motivation.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".