Audiovisual translation in primary education. Students’ perceptions of the didactic possibilities of subtitling and dubbing in foreign language learning
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 investigates the use of Audiovisual Translation (AVT) as a didactic tool in primary education. Several studies confirm that subtitling and dubbing are beneficial for productive and receptive skills, vocabulary acquisition, translation competence, and learners’ motivation and engagement. However, research in the field has been devoted primarily to university students enrolled in translation and language programmes, and there is a dearth of papers exploring the use of AVT in early educational stages. This paper is intended to fill this gap by examining the perceptions of primary education students on the use of interlingual subtitling and creative dubbing in learning English at school. The sample includes 120 students from 10 public primary schools in Spain who participated in a 3-month teaching study. The research tool was a student questionnaire aimed at gathering their perceptions on the use of AVT; this survey was complemented with in-class observations. Results underline the favourable views students had on the use of AVT in language learning in primary education, with a slight preference for dubbing over subtitling. This outcome brings to the fore the educational possibilities of AVT, which may be a useful resource in language teaching.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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