Teachers’ Perceptions Toward Video as a Tool for Feedback on Students’ Oral Performance
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
Video technology has the potential to improve opportunities for students to benefit from feedback that is essential for learning. However, previous studies have all dealt with videos of tutors, rather than videos of students’ performances. This study explores whether video technology contributes to the quality of feedback on students’ oral language performance and investigates how language teachers perceive contemporary technology regarding student education. Participants in the study were eight incumbent teachers involved in language education. The interview data suggested that the teachers seemed to be very positive about using video technology as a tool for feedback. The technology not only allowed for evidence-based accounts which served to enrich the quality of feedback, but also enabled them to highlight specific aspects of oral performances and create feedback that is conducive to understanding. The findings of this study showed that technology-enhanced evidence-based feedback will be able to provide an important supplement to written feedback, adding one more mode for an effective feedback process.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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