Note-taking in Academic Listening: A Translanguaging Perspective
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
With the increasing demands for academic listening and note-taking in English for academic purposes (EAP) settings, L2 English students are expected to understand academic listening tasks introduced by their professors, understand the key information given by the speakers, and take notes while listening so as not to miss the important points. This study reports on EAP students’ note-taking in academic listening from a translanguaging perspective. It explores the integration of note-taking (Turkish and English, translanguaging) into an academic listening course in Türkiye and its effects on 45 Turkish students’ L2 English listening test scores, with the achievement level of students as a moderating variable. The results show the noticeable effect of note-taking in English and translanguaging on the students’ listening test scores. The article provides empirical descriptions of note-taking instruction and discusses the pedagogical implications, including suggestions for teachers to expand their repertoire of strategies for teaching academic listening and note-taking with a translanguaging approach.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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