An Investigation into the Influence of Blended Learning on Oral English Proficiency of Senior High School Students
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
We advocate the in-depth integration of information technology and education in the digital age, and we also encourage teachers of all disciplines to actively carry out online and offline blended learning. This study attempts to use an empirical research to apply the Blended Learning to the oral English teaching in the first year of senior high school. A one-semester teaching experiment is conducted to explore whether there is a significant difference in the students’ oral English proficiency between the experimental class and the controlled class. The major findings of the study are as follows: (1) There are significant differences of students’ oral English proficiency before and after the experiment in the experimental class and the controlled class; (2) Blended learning can improve students’ oral English proficiency, among which pronunciation and intonation, range and accuracy of vocabulary and fluency of language are the most significant ones, while the accuracy and complexity of grammatical structure are insignificant.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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