Improving Oral Communicative Competence in English Using Project-Based Learning Activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The quasi-experimental study investigated the effectiveness of using project-based learning (PjBL) activities as a teaching strategy in improving the oral communicative competence of Malaysian English language learners. The participants included 44 diploma students enrolled in a Communicative English course at a technical college in the Peninsular Malaysia, who were purposely selected for the study. The intervention comprised a 12-week lessons taught using PjBL teaching strategy and centred on eight PjBL activities. Data were collected using a speaking test and a listening test, which were administered as pre-tests and post-tests, and a student questionnaire which was administered at the end of the study. Data analysis involved the procedure of MANOVA, as well as descriptive statistics such as mean, standard deviation and percentage. The findings revealed a significant improvement in the learners’ overall oral communicative competence and a high perception of PjBL by the learners. It is concluded that PjBL teaching strategy is effective in improving the oral communicative competence of the English language learners. The study recommends the use of PjBL as a suitable English language teaching strategy for technical students who are generally low proficient English language 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".