Demonstration Technique to Improve Vocabulary and Grammar Element in Teaching Speaking at EFL Learners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed at examining the effectiveness of demonstration technique to improve vocabulary and grammar element in teaching speaking at EFL learners. This research applied true-experimental design. The respondents of the study were 32 students (class IIA) as experimental group and 32 students (class IIB) as control group from the second semester of Economic Departments of Hamzanwadi University in the academic year 2016-2017. To collect the data, a pre-test and a post-test were given to the EFL learners. To analyze the data, the researcher applied SPSS 17 for windows. To analyze whether there was a significant difference in the mean score between pre-test and post-test, the researcher used a paired-samples t-test to get answer of the hypothesis. After performing a paired-samples t-test, the researcher found that there was a significant difference in mean scores between experimental and control group and t-test score is higher than t-table, it meant that demonstration technique was significantly effective in teaching speaking, especially to improve the element of vocabulary and grammar in teaching speaking at EFL learners.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".