The Effects of TikTok Application on the Improvement of EFL Students’ English-Speaking Skills
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
Technology development and the COVID-19 pandemic altered teaching and learning processes. TikTok, a social media platform that integrates short videos, became a medium of instruction to help students master communication skills, in particular listening and speaking skills. This study, using mixed-methods research, investigated the effects of using the TikTok application on EFL students’ speaking skills and the students’ perceptions toward the use of the TikTok application to improve their speaking skills. Speaking tests and questionnaires were administered to 60 students enrolled in a public speaking class. Additionally, 13 students volunteered to take part in semi-structured interviews. The results showed that TikTok was effective in improving EFL students’ English-speaking skills. Moreover, students had positive perceptions towards the TikTok application. Most students agreed that utilizing TikTok is enjoyable and promotes creativity, and provides new opportunities to learn English. TikTok should be integrated into language learning contexts to make the classroom environment more engaging and promote students’ language proficiency.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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