Digital Posters to Engage EFL Students and Develop Their Reading Comprehension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the effect of digital posters on the reading comprehension and engagement of EFL students. Thirty-three 3rd-year EFL college students were divided into a control group (n = 17) and an experimental group (n = 16). Both groups were pretested on reading comprehension and engagement before the experiment and then posttested after it. For 12 weeks, participants in the control group received their regular instruction while those in the experimental group used digital posters. Using digital posters went through six steps: orientation, preparation, production, presentation, evaluation, and reflection. While Mann-Whitney U Test showed no significant differences between the two groups in the pretest of reading comprehension (U = 118.00; p > 0.05) or engagement (U = 102.00; p > 0.05), it showed significant differences between them in the posttest of reading comprehension (U = 70.00, p < 0.05) and engagement (U = 57.00, p < 0.05). This led the researcher to reach the conclusion that digital posters significantly improved the reading comprehension and engagement of EFL students.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".