An Empirical Study on the Information Technology Teaching Model for Improving Athletes' English Speaking Ability: Taking Hainan Provincial Sports Academy as an Example
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper attempts to study the application of information technology in oral English teaching in Hainan Provincial Sports Academy, that is, to form an information-based teaching model, expand teaching resources, enrich teaching content, and make oral English teaching more interesting by applying information technology and platforms such as applied learning guide, interactive superstar platform, micro-class video, audio, PPT, and dubbing software before, during and after class. Also, this paper wants to explore the improvement of athletes students' interest, initiative and confidence in oral English learning by applying the information technology and the improvement of their English learning autonomy. This paper is based on constructivism learning theory, input hypothesis theory and output hypothesis theory. On the basis of the theory, this paper focus on the following aspects: the application of information technology affects the athlete students in English learning, especially their learning autonomy, learning interest and learning confidence; the application of information technology affects the oral English level of these students in Hainan Provincial Sports Academy. This empirical study takes athlete students in author's school as the experimental objects. Among them, information technology is used in oral English teaching at the beginning of the term. This study lasted for 16 weeks, and the data were obtained through pre-test, post-test and questionnaire and the statistical software Excel 2007 and SPSS Statistics 23 were used to analyse the data and draw a conclusion. At the same time, all athlete students were interviewed after the experiment. It was found that the application of information technology in oral English teaching effectively improves students' learning autonomy and their interest in English learning, after the application of information technology, the English oral level of these athletes was significantly improved. The experimental subjects of this study were 148 people, which may be insufficient in sample size and the experiment lasted for 16 weeks, the experiment time was not enough. Therefore, these may have an impact on the universality, representativeness and accuracy of the results of this study.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".