Effects of Visual Communication on Memory Enhancement of Thai Undergraduate Students, Kasetsart University
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
Memory is important in a learning process. The more students can memorize or retain information from a learning process, the greater possibility students can perform better in their learning. Therefore, this research aimed to explore visual communication in terms of its effectiveness and effects on memory enhancement with 19 Thai undergraduate students by using a communication skills online course with visual communication, an evaluation questionnaire of the selected course, an effectiveness questionnaire of visual communication, and a memory test on the selected course. Mean, standard deviation, content analysis and a t-test for dependent samples were used to analyze data collected from all research instruments. The research findings indicated that using visual communication produced positive results in enhancing student memory and thus generating greater student learning, which can be concluded that visual communication has high potential to be implemented in class as an effective tool for teaching courses to enhance student memory and thus create better learning performance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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