The Use of Listening Comprehension Strategies in Distance Language Education
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 study aims to examine the listening comprehension strategies used by foreign language learners who are learning languages through distance education. It also aims to explore how the use of listening comprehension strategies differs in terms of three variables, namely, gender, L2, and department majored. To do this, the Listening Strategy Inventory was administered to students attending English and German language classes through distance education at three state universities in Turkey. The data were collected during the 2020-2021 academic year. The study used quantitative analysis methods. The data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and the statistical analyses independent samples t-test. The findings revealed that students use listening comprehension strategies at a moderate level. The most commonly used listening comprehension strategies were those for while listening and nonverbal strategies, while learners use word-oriented strategies the least. The study also revealed statistically significant differences by gender in foreign language learners’ listening comprehension strategies, but no significant differences for department majored and L2 variables. It is recommended that individual differences be considered when teaching listening comprehension strategies to foreign language learners.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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