A Comparison of the Learning Efficiency of Business English between the Blended Teaching and Conventional Teaching for College 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
Over the last thirty to forty years, as technology and supplementary broadcast networks have advanced, an increasing number of teachers have entered the classroom with new perspectives, such as providing students with resources and an environment that adheres to the blended teaching style. Learning can take place whenever and wherever it is desired with a blended teaching approach. The primary goal of this study was to investigate whether the blended teaching strategies and materials or the traditional teaching method in the Business English class increase students' learning satisfaction and academic achievement. Participants in this study included 56 undergraduate students majoring in Applied Foreign Languages in central Taiwan. Business English ESP courses were offered during the 108 and 109 academic years. The four-point Likert scale questionnaire was distributed after students took the course. Moreover, in-person interviews and class observations were also focused to reveal overall students’ learning efficiency and perceptions on the preferences of teaching techniques in Business English and their learning satisfaction. As a result, students considered blended teaching an effective teaching strategy that increased their learning motivation with additional instructional activities. In addition, findings demonstrated that both handwritten exams (associated with traditional teaching methods) and interactive answering Apps (associated with blended teaching methods) work effectively based on different teaching methods. The outcomes of this study suggest that the majority of students have a positive attitude toward blended learning in the ESP program of business English and that their academic performance has obviously improved.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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