MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990624579 · doi:10.5539/hes.v10n1p16

Use of Self-Assessment of Video Recording to Raise Students’ Awareness of Development of Their Oral Presentation Skills

2019· article· en· W2990624579 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresentation (obstetrics)PsychologyClass (philosophy)Medical educationPublic speakingEye contactCommunication skillsMedicineComputer scienceDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims to examine if using video recordings help students raise their awareness of the development of their oral presentation skills by reviewing video recordings of their presentations. For this study, all students who took a Financial Accounting class in the academic year 2018–2019 at Lincoln University (LU) were video-recorded when presenting. Participants were asked to review their video recordings, assess their performance, and record their reflections by using a Self-Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ). The results indicated that the students’ attitude toward recording the presentations was highly positive. The predominant response was that this new learning activity increased students’ awareness of the importance of presentation skills without provoking their anxiety. Participants were able to observe that certain delivery skills such as good preparation, self-confidence, eye contact, and voice quality needed improvement. For managerial implications, LU, through its Writing and Speaking Center (WSC), offered thirty-minute sessions with a presentation coach to improve students’ communication skills and prepare them to give a more polished presentation in class. In comparing the practice presentation at the WSC with the final in-class presentation, students were observed to be more confident, better prepared, and less nervous during the final presentation. However, we observed that the practice presentation did not carry the same weight as the final presentation as the practice presentation was neither graded nor delivered in front of an instructor or a wider audience.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.401 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it