Assessing EFL Listening and Speaking Skills During Remote Teaching
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
The purpose of the present study was to analyse how English as a Foreign Language (EFL) listening and speaking skills were assessed during remote teaching as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The participants were 174 senior high school students in public and private institutions, 102 EFL teachers, 32 high school authorities, and 80 students’ parents. The methodology comprised a quantitative approach in which students’, teachers’, and authorities’ surveys were analysed. The instruments employed consisted of a five-point Likert scale that included strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree regarding items related to assessment. The findings suggest that for assessing listening and speaking skills the teachers in the research mostly used online technological tools such as quizzes, chatrooms, and blogs. Furthermore, the assessment instruments included oral presentations, questioning, as well as listening and speaking tests. Finally, formative and summative assessments were mainly employed to evaluate students’ listening and speaking skills during the pandemic.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it