YouTube Videos on EFL College Students’ Listening Comprehension
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aimed to explore the effect of using YouTube as a supplementary material with EFL college students. The research intended to reveal the improvement of the students’ listening comprehension after the 5-week treatments—students participating in this study are all Taiwanese, age from 18-20, with a high intermediate level of proficiency in English. They were all in the same class and were exposed under the multimedia (YouTube) learning environment. However, students were obliged to finish the pre-test and post-tests. Moreover, the questionnaire was offered to them in order to know the perceptions and reflections of students with integrating YouTube into courses as well. In this research, paired T-Test was used to find out if there was a significant difference that exists before and after the treatments, also validate the pre-specified result. It was suggested that after training in the combination of the computer-assisted learning technique and traditional pedagogy, students performed better on the listening comprehension test than without the treatment before.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it