Developing a Task-Based Dialogue System for English Language Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research involved the design of a task-based dialogue system and evaluation of its learning effectiveness. Dialogue training still heavily depends on human communication with instant feedback or correction. However, it is not possible to provide a personal tutor for every English learner. With the rapid development of information technology, digitized learning and voice communication is a possible solution. The goal of this research was to develop an innovative model to refine the task-based dialogue system, including natural language understanding, disassembly intention, and dialogue state tracking. To enable the dialogue system to find the corresponding sentence accurately, the dialogue system was designed with machine learning algorithms to allow users to communicate in a task-based fashion. Past research has pointed out that computer-assisted instruction has achieved remarkable results in language reading, writing, and listening. Therefore, the direction of the discussion is to use the task-oriented dialogue system as a speaking teaching assistant. To train the speaking ability, the proposed system provides a simulation environment with goal-oriented characteristics, allowing learners to continuously improve their language fluency in terms of speaking ability by simulating conversational situational exercises. To evaluate the possibility of replacing the traditional English speaking practice with the proposed system, a small English speaking class experiment was carried out to validate the effectiveness of the proposed system. Data of 28 students with three assigned tasks were collected and analyzed. The promising results of the collected students’ feedback confirm the positive perceptions toward the system regarding user interface, learning style, and the system’s effectiveness.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".