Effects of Applying Speech-Enabled Language Translation Technology to EMI Lectures on Students' Discussion Quality and Learning Achievement
Saved in:
| Title: | Effects of Applying Speech-Enabled Language Translation Technology to EMI Lectures on Students' Discussion Quality and Learning Achievement |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Rustam Shadiev (ORCID |
| Source: | Educational Technology Research and Development. 2025 73(1):229-260. |
| Availability: | Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 32 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Higher Education Postsecondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Translation, Audio Equipment, Speech Communication, English (Second Language), Second Language Learning, Second Language Instruction, Language of Instruction, Lecture Method, Prior Learning, Knowledge Level, Chinese, Classroom Environment, Comparative Analysis, Group Discussion, Student Attitudes, College Students, Positive Attitudes, Technology Uses in Education, Computational Linguistics, Educational Technology, Learning Processes, Academic Achievement |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11423-024-10427-0 |
| ISSN: | 1042-1629 1556-6501 |
| Abstract: | This study employed speech-enabled language translation (SELT) technology in lectures presented in English as a medium of instruction (EMI). Previous research had students viewing pre-recorded lectures with incorporated content translations in controlled laboratory settings. In contrast, students in the present study experienced live lectures in actual classrooms, where the SELT system immediately translated English speech into Chinese and displayed the translation for students. The aim was to explore the potential of SELT technology in enhancing students' understanding of the lecture content and aiding their discussions. The study used the experimental research method. Sixty university students were recruited and divided into three groups, namely, Control group 1 (students did not have any support), Control group 2 (students received transcriptions) and Experimental group (students received translations). Three lectures in EMI were carried out, and student discussion around lecture topics were arranged after each lecture. To achieve objectives of the study, students' knowledge prior and after lectures were measured and compared, and the content of students' discussion was analyzed. The results showed positive effects of SELT technology on learning achievement. That is, students who received SELT texts performed the best on the tests compared to their counterparts. The results also showed that discussion of students who used SELT texts was more efficient. Finally, the students had positive perceptions of SELT texts. We believe that applying SELT technology to lectures in EMI in the physical classroom settings was a feasible and useful way to facilitate students' comprehension of lecturing content and their discussion. Therefore, it is suggested that educators and researchers can use SELT technology in lectures in foreign languages as a medium of instruction in the physical classroom to facilitate student learning. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1462646 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHttseX3sN2FGJTjwP_OA5SAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJYAcK1fbuq5oZjE6wIBEICBm0icQ4EhJfCwba0HGb06kWzYNzytwW3oIz0BxiXPte2FaUJjhC9ut98MPpUKhsMK_SAOH3fcLJhJfPHGNl6AvcNwSEB11hRSuN4Hya860hr4HQun7OxCZDzc03VFq_30w-nvvRxfAd0GFgq-D-zYN9p7Urx77wBzFmkU9WskGDkhjlzIkq9TNZBlmpFZmohhMrgy3B7P5l17BJov Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0183751072;etr01feb.25;2025Mar19.03:45;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0183751072-1">Effects of applying speech-enabled language translation technology to EMI lectures on students' discussion quality and learning achievement: Effects of applying speech-enabled language translation...: R. Shadiev et al </title> <p>This study employed speech-enabled language translation (SELT) technology in lectures presented in English as a medium of instruction (EMI). Previous research had students viewing pre-recorded lectures with incorporated content translations in controlled laboratory settings. In contrast, students in the present study experienced live lectures in actual classrooms, where the SELT system immediately translated English speech into Chinese and displayed the translation for students. The aim was to explore the potential of SELT technology in enhancing students' understanding of the lecture content and aiding their discussions. The study used the experimental research method. Sixty university students were recruited and divided into three groups, namely, Control group 1 (students did not have any support), Control group 2 (students received transcriptions) and Experimental group (students received translations). Three lectures in EMI were carried out, and student discussion around lecture topics were arranged after each lecture. To achieve objectives of the study, students' knowledge prior and after lectures were measured and compared, and the content of students' discussion was analyzed. The results showed positive effects of SELT technology on learning achievement. That is, students who received SELT texts performed the best on the tests compared to their counterparts. The results also showed that discussion of students who used SELT texts was more efficient. Finally, the students had positive perceptions of SELT texts. We believe that applying SELT technology to lectures in EMI in the physical classroom settings was a feasible and useful way to facilitate students' comprehension of lecturing content and their discussion. Therefore, it is suggested that educators and researchers can use SELT technology in lectures in foreign languages as a medium of instruction in the physical classroom to facilitate student learning.</p> <p>Keywords: Speech-enabled language translation; Lecture in a foreign language; Discussion; Learning performance; Education Specialist Studies In Education Language; Communication and Culture Linguistics</p> <p>The original version of this article was revised: Authors' affiliations were assigned incorrectly in the article as originally published and have subsequently been corrected.</p> <hd id="AN0183751072-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The rapid development of educational technology has become increasingly appealing to educators who integrate these tools into teaching and learning (Anasheva et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>]; Hwang et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref2">8</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref3">11</reflink>]; Kerimbayev et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref4">14</reflink>]; Mukhtarkyzy et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref5">24</reflink>]; Soyoof et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref6">36</reflink>]). One example is machine translation, a component of artificial intelligence technology, which is widely applied in various teaching and learning contexts, including foreign language learning (Hwang et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref7">10</reflink>]; Lee &amp; Briggs, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref8">17</reflink>]; Niño, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref9">25</reflink>]), translation teaching (Qin &amp; Wang, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref10">26</reflink>]), cross-cultural education (Shadiev &amp; Huang, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref11">30</reflink>]; Shadiev et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref12">33</reflink>]), and in supporting lectures delivered in a foreign language (Miró et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref13">21</reflink>]; Shadiev et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref14">28</reflink>]). In these contexts, machine translation technology, particularly speech-enabled language translation (SELT)—which captures spoken input from a speaker, translates it into the listener's native language, and simultaneously displays the translated content—plays a crucial role. For instance, in foreign language learning, SELT can facilitate communication by translating spoken input from one language to another, allowing students to interact more effectively in multilingual settings (Lee &amp; Briggs, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref15">17</reflink>]). In translation teaching, SELT can provide real-time translations that help students grasp the nuances of language use in different contexts (Qin &amp; Wang, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref16">26</reflink>]). Additionally, in cross-cultural education, SELT enables participants from diverse linguistic backgrounds to communicate seamlessly, fostering greater cultural exchange and understanding (Shadiev &amp; Huang, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref17">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>These concepts are illustrated through the following examples of SELT applications across different learning contexts. In language learning, Hwang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref18">10</reflink>]) developed a mobile application to assist students with speaking and listening practice, incorporating speech translation and speech shadowing functions. The speech translation feature could instantly translate the learner's voice and provide spoken output, while the speech shadowing function had students repeat words or sentences and then evaluated their spoken quality. The system provided decreasing feedback as students' proficiency improved. The study found that this mobile application effectively enhanced students' speaking and listening abilities both in the classroom and in outdoor settings. Lee and Briggs ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref19">17</reflink>]) utilized a translation tool to mediate the revision process of English as a foreign language (EFL) learners' academic writing. Learners compared their original EFL texts to those generated by the translation tool, which helped reduce lexical and grammatical errors and improve the quality of their revisions. Niño ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref20">25</reflink>]) explored the use of translation technology for independent language learning. The study revealed that while SELT is still less developed than text-to-text translation technology, it was helpful for improving written comprehension, vocabulary in context, and as a quick language checker for brief written or oral utterances. These studies collectively demonstrate that SELT technology enhances various aspects of language learning, including speaking, listening, writing, and comprehension. SELT's real-time feedback and translation functions are effective across both formal and independent learning contexts, improving learners' proficiency by facilitating language practice, error correction, and vocabulary acquisition.</p> <p>In the context of translation teaching, Qin and Wang ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref21">26</reflink>]) investigated the role of translation tools in preparing students for simultaneous interpreting. They compared the translation accuracy between students in an experimental (who used technology) and a control group (who did not use technology). The findings indicated that technology was beneficial for student interpreters during simultaneous interpreting. However, the study also found that mistranslations produced by the technology could mislead students during their interpreting practice. Yang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref22">41</reflink>]) assessed the usability of machine translation in a classroom setting. The researchers compared translation outputs produced by students using a translation tool with those produced manually. The results showed that the translations generated by the tool were more efficient. These studies highlight the potential of translation technology to improve the efficiency and accuracy of translation tasks in educational settings. While technology enhances students' performance in simultaneous interpreting (Qin &amp; Wang, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref23">26</reflink>]) and increases efficiency in classroom translation tasks (Yang et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref24">41</reflink>]), there are challenges such as the risk of mistranslations that can mislead learners during practice.</p> <p>Machine translation has also been applied in cross-cultural learning contexts. Shadiev et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref25">33</reflink>]) utilized SELT to facilitate cross-cultural, multilingual communication. Participants from different countries communicated in their native languages, with SELT translating the content into the respective target languages to enable multilingual interaction. In a subsequent study, Shadiev and Huang ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref26">30</reflink>]) examined whether their intervention could enhance cross-cultural understanding. They also assessed the accuracy rates of SELT for different languages during multilingual communication, identified issues in the translation process, and proposed potential solutions. The findings indicated that SELT had the lowest accuracy rates for Mongolian and Filipino, while the highest accuracy rates were observed for Spanish, Russian, and French. The study identified ten issues related to the SELT process, such as incorrect word order or missing words in the translated text, and proposed thirteen strategies to address these issues, including breaking sentences into smaller parts, adding punctuation marks, or rephrasing spoken sentences. These studies demonstrate that SELT has been effective in facilitating multilingual communication and enhancing cross-cultural understanding, though its accuracy varies across languages. While it performs well with languages like Spanish and Russian, challenges such as translation errors and lower accuracy rates for languages like Mongolian and Filipino require targeted strategies, such as sentence restructuring and punctuation adjustments, to improve the quality of translations.</p> <p>Another valuable application of SELT, and the focus of this study, is in lectures delivered in a foreign language (Shadiev et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref27">34</reflink>]). In such settings, proficiency in English is crucial for students, particularly non-native speakers, as it directly impacts their ability to communicate and understand lecture content (Joe &amp; Lee, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref28">13</reflink>]; Shayakhmetova et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref29">35</reflink>]). However, research shows that students with lower proficiency in a foreign or second language (FL/SL) often face significant challenges in fully comprehending academic content. These difficulties are especially pronounced in lectures delivered in an FL/SL, where students may struggle to keep up with the material, leading to unequal benefits from academic events (Molino, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref30">22</reflink>]; Sert, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref31">27</reflink>]; Shadiev et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref32">32</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref33">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>To address these challenges, speech-enabled language translation (SELT) technology has become an essential tool in lectures conducted in a foreign language as the medium of instruction. SELT captures the lecturer's spoken input, translates it into the students' native language, and displays the translated content simultaneously. This approach is particularly beneficial in educational settings where students have diverse FL/SL abilities, as it helps them overcome language barriers and better engage with the lecture material. By providing real-time translation, SELT enhances comprehension and enables students to participate more effectively in the learning process (Hwang et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref34">8</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref35">11</reflink>]; Miró et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref36">21</reflink>]; Shadiev &amp; Huang, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref37">31</reflink>]; Shadiev et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref38">28</reflink>]; Zhussupova et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref39">42</reflink>]).</p> <p>Shadiev et al. ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref40">28</reflink>]) provided SELT-generated texts to non-native English speaking students to enhance their comprehension of lectures delivered in English. SELT captured the instructor's verbal content during the lecture and translated it from English into Chinese. The lectures were pre-recorded, and translated texts were embedded into the recorded lectures, which were then delivered to students via computer screens. The study involved three groups of students: one group received no support, another group received transcription support, and the third group received translation support. The study compared the attention, meditation, perceived cognitive load, and satisfaction levels among the three groups. The results revealed that participants in the SELT group exhibited higher levels of satisfaction, attention, and meditation compared to the other two groups. Additionally, the perceived cognitive load of the SELT group was lower than that of their counterparts.</p> <p>In a subsequent study, Shadiev and Huang ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref41">31</reflink>]) also used pre-recorded lectures with SELT to focus on improving students' academic emotions and learning satisfaction in lectures delivered in a foreign language. Thirty-three university students participated, and their perceived academic emotions and learning satisfaction were measured and compared across two groups: low language ability (LLA) and high language ability (HLA). The findings revealed that LLA students initially exhibited low levels of academic emotions before lectures but experienced an increase during and after lectures. Conversely, HLA students showed high levels of academic emotions before lectures, which decreased during and after. Additionally, LLA students reported significantly higher levels of learning satisfaction compared to HLA students. These results suggest that SELT technology is particularly beneficial for LLA students, indicating that educators and researchers might consider applying SELT in EMI lectures to enhance LLA students' academic emotions and learning satisfaction.</p> <p>In another study, Shadiev et al. ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref42">34</reflink>]) also utilized pre-recorded lectures with SELT to facilitate student attention and meditation while reducing learning anxiety. Sixty-three students participated in the study, divided into two groups: thirty students in the speech-to-text (STR) group and thirty-three in the SELT group. The study compared affective factors in learning between the two groups. The results indicated that the SELT group exhibited higher levels of attention and meditation compared to the STR group, and that learning anxiety decreased in lectures supported by SELT. Additionally, students in the SELT group positively perceived the usefulness of SELT for learning. Miró et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref43">21</reflink>]) employed SELT to generate multilingual subtitles for online videos, such as MOOCs. Their case studies indicated that these multilingual subtitles positively impacted student enrollment. These studies highlight benefits of SELT to enhance student engagement, reduce cognitive load, and improve learning outcomes in lectures delivered in foreign languages. Across multiple studies, SELT increased attention, meditation, and satisfaction, particularly for students with lower language ability, while reducing learning anxiety. Additionally, SELT-generated multilingual subtitles have been found to positively impact student enrollment in online courses. These findings underscore the potential of SELT in supporting non-native speakers in various educational contexts.</p> <p>The potential effects of using SELT texts during lectures can be understood through the lens of information processing theory (Shadiev &amp; Huang, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref44">31</reflink>]). When attending lectures with SELT texts, learners engage with multimedia content, which is processed through two distinct channels: verbal content through the auditory channel and SELT texts through the visual channel. Information is acquired and processed through these visual and auditory channels. When visual learning content, such as SELT texts, is presented, the textual information enters the visual channel through the eyes. Simultaneously, verbal content, such as the instructor's speech, enters the auditory channel through the ears. The information from both channels is then stored in working memory, where it is processed and integrated with prior knowledge. This dual-channel processing enhances information processing.</p> <p>In the context of this study, students received the instructor's verbal content through the auditory channel during the lecture. Additionally, some students received visual content in the form of SELT texts, which were displayed simultaneously. Thus, as learners listened to the instructor's lecture, they could also read the translated texts, aiding their comprehension. However, some negative consequences may arise from using SELT in lectures. For example, it can be argued that presenting the same information in both verbal and visual modalities simultaneously may lead to an information redundancy effect (Sweller, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref45">38</reflink>]). This means that when students listen to the instructor's speech while simultaneously reading SELT texts, they might experience cognitive overload due to redundant information.</p> <p>However, there are exceptions to the redundancy effect (Clark &amp; Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref46">2</reflink>]). For example, when learners are studying content delivered in a foreign language or material that is difficult to understand, presenting information through both modalities simultaneously can actually facilitate learning. Additionally, scholars recommend considering the expertise reversal principle (Sweller et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref47">37</reflink>]) when presenting information in different modalities. This principle suggests that instructional techniques beneficial for learners with less prior knowledge may not be as effective for those with more prior knowledge. For example, SELT texts might be particularly helpful for learners with low language proficiency but may offer less benefit to those with higher language proficiency. Therefore, this study investigated the impact of SELT texts on the learning performance of learners with varying levels of English proficiency.</p> <p>Another important factor to consider in this study is student discussion. Research has shown that discussions can enhance students' understanding of lecture content and positively impact academic performance (Hwang et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref48">9</reflink>]; Koç, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref49">15</reflink>]). Therefore, effectively promoting student understanding through discussion is crucial. Researchers have employed various strategies (Darabi &amp; Jin, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref50">4</reflink>]; Miller et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref51">20</reflink>]; Yamane, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref52">40</reflink>]) and technologies (Gok, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref53">6</reflink>]; Ludvigsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref54">19</reflink>]) to facilitate and support student discussions. For example, Yamane ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref55">40</reflink>]) developed the course preparation assignments strategy to create discussion-based courses, demonstrating that these assignments can effectively transform classroom time into opportunities for discussion. Miller et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref56">20</reflink>]) found that peer discussions helped students correct their initial misconceptions, leading to more accurate understanding. Consequently, scholars suggest that teachers should facilitate peer discussions and provide guidance when necessary.</p> <p>Darabi and Jin ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref57">4</reflink>]) designed four online discussion strategies based on cognitive load theory to reduce the cognitive load during discussions. Ludvigsen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref58">19</reflink>]) introduced the concept of a dialogue space, which proved effective in planning and evaluating discussion-based activities within a lecture format. Similarly, Xie and Ke ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref59">39</reflink>]) emphasized that teachers should scaffold students' discussions to achieve higher-quality discourse.</p> <p>Research shows that student discussions enhance comprehension and academic performance, with strategies like peer discussions and online tools reducing cognitive load and improving discourse quality (Darabi &amp; Jin, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref60">4</reflink>]; Miller et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref61">20</reflink>]; Yamane, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref62">40</reflink>]). Given the significant role of discussion in the learning process, particularly in traditional lecture settings, and to enhance students' comprehension of lecture content, the present study incorporated student discussions following the lectures.</p> <p>SELT has been widely applied in various learning contexts, such as language learning, translation teaching and cross-cultural education. However, to the best of our knowledge, SELT has been relatively infrequently studied in the context of lectures delivered in a foreign language as the medium of instruction. This is an important research area, particularly when lectures are conducted in physical classroom settings and supported by SELT, as there are few studies on this topic.</p> <p>One reason for this gap is the limited capacity of the technology. Achieving highly accurate translations generated by SELT during live lectures has historically been challenging. Additionally, it has been difficult to translate content and display translated texts to students simultaneously (see Miró et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref63">21</reflink>]; Shadiev et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref64">28</reflink>], , for more details). As a result, most studies have translated lecture content in advance by pre-recording lectures as videos and embedding translated texts into them. However, the learning context differs significantly between controlled lab settings with pre-recorded lectures and real physical classrooms where lectures are delivered in real-time, and SELT is generated and presented simultaneously. For example, in a live classroom, students must navigate the dynamic and potentially less predictable environment of real-time translation, which can introduce additional cognitive challenges that are not present in pre-recorded, lab-based settings. Moreover, no studies have explored the role of student discussions based on SELT texts to enhance comprehension. Typically, research scenarios involve an instructor delivering a lecture while SELT generates translated texts from the speech, leaving us with limited understanding of how SELT can be applied in traditional learning environments and its potential to promote student discussion and learning performance.</p> <p>This study aimed to bridge this research gap. Recent advancements in technology, particularly in artificial intelligence, have significantly improved the accuracy of SELT. It is now possible to translate lecture content in real-time and display the translated texts to students simultaneously. These advancements enable the use of SELT texts in student discussions, thereby facilitating their comprehension of lecture content.</p> <p>The significance of this study lies in its application of SELT in real classroom settings to facilitate students' comprehension. We evaluated the effectiveness of this application and also focused on how students discuss lecture content using translated texts. Since discussion is a critical component of the learning process, we explored how translated texts can support student discussions of learning content and examined students' perceptions of using translated texts during learning.</p> <p>This study sought to address the following research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What is the effect of SELT texts on students' comprehension of lecture content in a physical classroom setting?</item> <p></p> <item> How do SELT texts influence group discussions in a physical classroom?</item> <p></p> <item> What are students' perceptions of acceptance and satisfaction with SELT texts?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0183751072-3">Method</hd> <p>The study employed a mixed-methods research approach, which combines both quantitative and qualitative methods to offer a more comprehensive understanding of the research problem (Creswell, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref65">3</reflink>]). Specifically, tests and questionnaire results were used to collect broad, quantifiable data, while interviews provided deeper insights into the findings, allowing for a more nuanced exploration of the issues.</p> <hd id="AN0183751072-4">Participants</hd> <p>Sixty university students were recruited to participate in the experiment, all of whom provided informed consent. The participants were non-native English speakers with over ten years of English learning experience, and all were majoring in Education. Among the participants, there were three males and 57 females.</p> <hd id="AN0183751072-5">Experimental process</hd> <p>The study was approved by the ethics committee of [blinded] university and conducted in accordance with the ethical standards outlined in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. The research procedure is illustrated in Fig. 1. Prior to the experiment, participants' College English Test (CET) scores, including levels as CET 4 and CET 6, were collected. Based on these scores, the 60 participants were divided into two groups: low English ability (n = 30) and high English ability (n = 30).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Research procedure</p> <p>Subsequently, these students were randomly assigned into three groups, each consisting of 20 participants (10 low English ability and 10 high English ability students per group): Control Group 1, Control Group 2, and the Experimental Group. Participants in Control Group 1 received no additional support, those in Control Group 2 received transcriptions, and participants in the Experimental Group received translations.</p> <p>Before the experiment, the researcher provided each group with a detailed explanation of the experimental procedure and the tasks they were required to complete at each phase. This briefing was conducted separately for each group. Participants then completed a prior knowledge test and a questionnaire to gather demographic information.</p> <p>During the experiment, students attended lectures where the instructor delivered content verbally and used PowerPoint slides to enhance the presentation with visual aids. Students could hear the instructor's speech and see the corresponding slides on the whiteboard. In Control Group 1, students received no additional support. Students in Control Group 2 could view the slides along with STR (speech-to-text) transcriptions displayed at the bottom (Fig. 2, left), while those in the Experimental Group viewed the slides with SELT (speech-enabled language translation) texts at the bottom (Fig. 2, right). Texts were generated using either STR technology or SELT technology, both of which are advanced artificial intelligence tools developed by Microsoft Corporation. These technologies leverage key AI components such as natural language processing, neural networks, deep learning algorithms, and large-scale language models. Additionally, they integrate machine learning techniques and acoustic modeling to enhance speech recognition and translation accuracy. The combination of these cutting-edge components ensures both tools deliver highly accurate and reliable results.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 STR (left) and SELT texts (right)</p> <p>The topics of the three lectures were general, covering the ancient Olympics, the history of cyberspace, and the paper art. The learning content varied in difficulty and length across the lectures. The first and third lectures were similar in difficulty, though the third lecture was longer. The first lecture was slightly longer than the second, but the second lecture was more difficult. The purpose of selecting content with varying levels of difficulty and length was to examine whether differences emerged among the three groups when engaging with different types of learning material.</p> <p>The content of all lectures was based on the textbook titled "New curriculum standard encyclopedia series," published by Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press (SFLEP). SFLEP is one of the largest, most authoritative, and globally recognized publishers, specializing in foreign language textbooks, monographs, and dictionaries. The press provides educational materials for students at various levels of EFL, including beginner, intermediate and advanced levels. For this study, we selected content from the intermediate EFL level for Lectures 1 and 3, and from the advanced EFL level for Lecture 2. Additionally, a professor of English from the Department of Foreign Languages reviewed the content of all lectures and confirmed that they accurately corresponded to the designated difficulty levels.</p> <p>After the teacher concluded each lecture, participants were informed about the discussion process. In each group, students were paired, with one high English proficiency student matched with one low proficiency student. The students discussed the lecture content in either Chinese or English for approximately eight minutes, with their discussions recorded on tablets. A discussion protocol was designed to guide the students through the discussion process, and the researcher provided guidance to each group during their peer discussions.</p> <p>Following the discussion, students completed a post-test and a perception questionnaire. After completing the first lecture, students moved on to the second lecture, and subsequently to the third. The learning procedure for the second and third lectures was identical to that of the first lecture.</p> <p>Once all the lectures were completed, one-on-one interviews were conducted with students. Although all students volunteered to participate, only ten from each of the three groups were randomly selected. This selection included five students with low English proficiency and five with high English proficiency, ensuring balanced representation in the interviews. Finally, the research data were collected and analyzed. The entire process, including the three lectures, tests, questionnaires, and interviews, took approximately three hours.</p> <hd id="AN0183751072-6">Data collection</hd> <p>To answer the first research question, a prior knowledge test and a post-test were administered to students in all three groups, and the test outcomes were compared across the groups. For the second research question, we analyzed the content of students' discussions. To answer the third research question, a perception questionnaire was administered. Interviews were also conducted to further support our findings.</p> <p> <emph>Prior knowledge test</emph> The prior knowledge test included three multiple choice questions and three answer questions. The prior knowledge test was used to measure students' prior knowledge.</p> <p> <emph>English proficiency score</emph> This study collected the English proficiency scores of the participants before the experiment based on CET levels 4 and 6.</p> <p> <emph>Post-test</emph> The post-test tested the learning achievement of the students. It consisted of three multiple-choice questions, three answer questions and summary question.</p> <p> <emph>Student discussion</emph> Students discussed their understanding of the lecture content in pairs. This study analyzed the content of these discussions to measure the quality of student engagement. We developed a discussion coding scheme based on thematic analysis (Creswell, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref66">3</reflink>]), a qualitative method that is highly effective for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data. Thematic analysis is widely valued in qualitative research for its flexibility and its capacity to provide rich, detailed, and nuanced accounts of data. This approach involves systematically coding the data, organizing these codes into themes, and then interpreting the themes in relation to the research questions. It is particularly useful for uncovering common topics, concerns, or opinions expressed by students during discussions. In this study, we employed thematic analysis to systematically code and categorize the students' discussions, enabling us to distill the content into meaningful themes.</p> <p>We began by coding the content of students' discussions, identifying specific instances of questions and answers. These initial codes were further refined into sub-categories such as detail-related questions/answers, broad questions/answers, and questions/answers based on information fragments. Additionally, we identified codes related to vocabulary and phrases, such as vocabulary-phrase-related questions/answers.</p> <p>After the coding process, these codes were organized into broader categories, namely "questions" and "answers" (see Appendix A). To ensure consistency and validity, a second researcher reviewed all the codes and the resulting categories. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion until a consensus was reached. This process allowed us to systematically move from specific codes to the development of meaningful themes that captured the essence of the students' discussions.</p> <p> <emph>Perception questionnaire</emph> Students' perceptions of using transcriptions (STR-texts) and translations (SELT-texts) were collected through a questionnaire. The questionnaire was developed based on the research of Shadiev et al. ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref67">28</reflink>]), Shadiev and Huang ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref68">31</reflink>]), and Shadiev et al. ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref69">34</reflink>]). The perception questionnaire included three dimensions, namely usefulness of STR-texts or SELT-texts, intention to use STR-texts or SELT-texts for learning in the future, and learning satisfaction with STR-texts or SELT-texts. Perceived usefulness included six items, intention included three items, and satisfaction included five items. The questionnaire used a five-point Likert scale to score the responses to the questionnaire, i.e. "1" meant strongly disagree, and "5" meant strongly agree. The internal consistency of the questionnaire was tested. The Cronbach's α values ranged from 0.890 to 0.955.</p> <p> <emph>Interviews.</emph> To explore students' learning experiences in lectures, the researcher conducted interviews with the students. The interview protocol was designed based on insights from previous related studies (Shadiev &amp; Huang, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref70">31</reflink>]; Shadiev et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref71">28</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref72">34</reflink>]). All interviews were recorded and transcribed for analysis. Relevant text segments were then coded and subsequently organized into categories. Twenty-two codes were identified from the interviews and were consolidated into categories such as Usefulness for Learning, Discussion, and Issues for the SELT intervention; Usefulness for Learning, Discussion, and Issues for the STR intervention; and Issues for the No Support intervention (see Appendix H).</p> <p>To promote reliability and valid interpretations of the research instruments used in this study, several steps were undertaken. First, our instruments were developed based on established tools from prior related research (Shadiev &amp; Huang, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref73">31</reflink>]; Shadiev et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref74">28</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref75">34</reflink>]), which have been reported by scholars to reliably and validly measure the target research variables. An initial draft of the instruments was reviewed by three experts—one professor from the English department and two professors from the educational technology department. Based on their feedback, we made slight modifications to enhance the relevance and precision of the instruments. For instance, the experts recommended removing unrelated items and retaining only those that specifically measure the variables of our study.</p> <p>Following these revisions, we conducted a pilot test with six students from the educational technology department to assess the instruments' clarity and functionality. The pilot test did not reveal any issues, and the students were able to complete it successfully. Based on the results of this pilot, we finalized the instruments, ensuring they were well-suited for the main study.</p> <hd id="AN0183751072-7">Data analysis</hd> <p>Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was used to analyze the students' post-test scores across the three lectures, with prior knowledge test scores as a covariate. Additionally, the study explored the effect of SELT texts on the post-test scores of students with different English abilities, using MANCOVA with prior knowledge test scores as a covariate. In addition, students' discussions were recorded and coded. The discussion codes were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA). In order to explore the differences between two groups, a post hoc analysis was also conducted. Finally, we utilized the independent sample t-test analysis method to assess students' perceptions of STR texts versus SELT texts in Control group 2 and the Experimental group. Prior to the execution of the aforementioned statistical tests, fundamental assumptions for these analyses such as independence of observations, normality, and equal variances were meticulously evaluated (Creswell, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref76">3</reflink>]; Jain, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref77">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>The Shapiro–Wilk Test and Levene's Test were employed to assess the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance (Field, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref78">5</reflink>]). The assumption of normality for the tests was confirmed, as the p-value surpassed the 0.05 threshold, indicating that the error variances are normally distributed. Similarly, the assumption of homogeneity of variance was met (p &gt; 0.05), signifying the groups' homogeneity. Furthermore, the ANOVA assumption concerning the homoscedasticity of residuals was examined, confirming that this assumption was upheld.</p> <hd id="AN0183751072-8">Results and discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183751072-9">Learning achievement</hd> <p>The results of the MANCOVA analysis (Appendix B) revealed significant differences in post-test scores among the three groups after each lecture. Students in the Experimental group scored higher than those in Control Group 1 and Control Group 2 in the first (F = 7.544, p &lt; 0.001, ηp2 = 0.218), second (F = 21.55, p &lt; 0.001, ηp2 = 0.444), and third (F = 9.533, p &lt; 0.001, ηp2 = 0.261) lectures. These findings indicate a positive effect of SELT texts on post-test performance. Specifically, students with SELT text support outperformed those with STR text support and those without any support across all three lectures. This suggests that, regardless of the difficulty or length of the lectures, SELT texts enabled students to achieve higher post-test scores. Although students who received STR text support scored higher on the post-test compared to those without any support, the difference was not statistically significant.</p> <p>The reason why students in the Experimental group outperformed those in the two control groups can be explained as follows. When information is presented to learners in both visual and verbal forms simultaneously, it can enhance learning outcomes. Learners acquire information through both verbal and visual channels, which is then stored in working memory, processed, and integrated with prior knowledge. This dual-channel processing facilitates more effective information processing (Clark &amp; Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref79">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>In this study, students in the Experimental group not only heard the teacher's speech in English but also had access to SELT texts. This allowed them to acquire information through the verbal channel while simultaneously receiving corresponding SELT texts through the visual channel. Because visual and auditory working memories operate as independent processors, students were able to process information from both channels without experiencing cognitive overload, thereby increasing their overall processing capacity when two modalities are utilized (Moreno &amp; Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref80">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>As a result, students in the Experimental group, who had access to SELT texts, achieved better post-test scores than those without any support. This finding is further corroborated by our interview results, specifically the codes in the "1.1 Usefulness for Learning" and "3.1 Issues" categories.</p> <p>Students in the Experimental group also outperformed those in Control Group 2 (i.e., with STR texts), despite both groups being exposed to information in both visual and verbal forms. Additionally, students in Control Group 2 did not outperform those in Control Group 1 (without any support). This finding is intriguing, and a possible explanation lies in the cognitive demands placed on the students in Control Group 2. When these students received the STR texts in English, they had to translate them into Chinese, which added an extra layer of cognitive load as they juggled the translation alongside listening to the concurrent audio content (interview code 2.3.1).</p> <p>In contrast, students in the Experimental group, who received SELT texts in their native language, were spared the effort of translation. This allowed them to focus more fully on the learning content, enhancing their comprehension and performance (interview code 1.1.1). According to Clark and Mayer ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref81">2</reflink>]), the advantage of multimedia presentation is particularly evident in challenging contexts, such as navigating lectures in a foreign language. These scenarios highlight the synergistic power of visual and verbal channels in improving understanding and memory retention.</p> <p>Related studies have also demonstrated the positive effects of SELT technology on learning. For example, Shadiev et al. ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref82">28</reflink>]) found that providing SELT texts to non-native English-speaking students in EMI lectures significantly enhanced their learning outcomes. However, it's important to note that this study was conducted in a laboratory setting, with pre-recorded lectures. Similarly, Miró et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref83">21</reflink>]) reported that multilingual subtitles created for videos had positive effects, such as increased student enrollment on a MOOC platform. Shadiev and Huang ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref84">30</reflink>]) found that SELT texts improved students' attention and meditation levels during lectures, while also reducing cognitive load.</p> <p>Although these studies (Miró et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref85">21</reflink>]; Shadiev &amp; Huang, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref86">30</reflink>]) highlighted the benefits of SELT, their focus was primarily on outcomes like student enrollment, attention, meditation, and cognitive load, rather than on direct measures of learning achievement. This indicates a gap in the research, particularly concerning the application of SELT in classroom settings and its impact on learning achievement. Therefore, more studies are needed in the future to explore these aspects.</p> <p>Next, the post-test scores of students with different English abilities were analyzed using MANOVA. For students with low English ability, the results showed that the three groups of students had no significant differences in post-test scores after the first lecture (<emph>F</emph> = 2.713, <emph>p</emph> &gt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.184). The results also showed that the three groups of students had significant differences in post-test scores after the second (<emph>F</emph> = 8.853, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.425) and third (<emph>F</emph> = 5.021, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.295) lectures. A follow-up analysis indicated that in the first and third lectures, the post-test scores of students in Experimental group were higher than those of Control group 1. In the second lecture, the post-test scores of the students in Experimental group were higher than those of Control group 1 and Control group 2.</p> <p>For students with high English ability, the results showed that the three groups of students had differences in the post-test scores of the first lecture (<emph>F</emph> = 4.482, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.272), second lecture (<emph>F</emph> = 8.837, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.424), and third lecture (<emph>F</emph> = 3.652, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.233). The post hoc results showed that in the first and third lectures, the post-test scores of Experimental group students were higher than those of Control group 1. In the second lecture, the post-test scores of the students in Experimental group were higher than those of Control group 1 and Control group 2.</p> <p>Our results demonstrated significant differences in post-test scores among the three groups of students with low English proficiency across two lectures. Specifically, students supported by SELT texts outperformed those without any support in all three lectures. However, in the first and third lectures, the post-test scores of students with SELT text support were not significantly higher than those with STR text support. The SELT texts, presented in Chinese, allowed students to easily understand the lecture content, which likely contributed to their improved performance.</p> <p>The lack of a significant difference in post-test scores among SELT and STR groups in the first and third lectures can be attributed to the fact that the first lecture was the easiest and shortest, and the third lecture was easier and longer. In contrast, the second lecture was more difficult, which may explain the significant effect of SELT texts in this case. Students with low English proficiency struggled to understand the content of the lecture without additional support (interview code 3.1.1), making the SELT texts particularly helpful (interview code 1.1.1).</p> <p>As the lectures progressed, students with low English proficiency faced increasing challenges in maintaining attention due to the extended duration of the lectures and the foreign language used. This difficulty in sustaining concentration without any support likely contributed to their lower post-test scores in the three lectures (interview codes 3.1.1 and 3.1.2). This finding is consistent with previous research indicating that the length of lecture content can significantly impact student learning. For example, Gorissen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref87">7</reflink>]) found that the number and length of recorded lectures made it difficult for students to navigate. Similarly, Lin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref88">18</reflink>]) discovered that as the length of online video lectures increased, student engagement decreased, particularly with lecture videos. Kuo and Belland ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref89">16</reflink>]) also noted that course length and type influenced the interaction between students and teachers.</p> <p>These findings highlight the importance of providing additional support, such as SELT texts, to students with low English proficiency, especially during longer or more challenging lectures.</p> <p>When examining students with high English proficiency, this study found notable differences in post-test scores among the three groups across all three lectures. Specifically, students supported by SELT texts outperformed those without any support in each of the lectures. However, the post-test scores of students with SELT text support were not significantly higher than those of students with STR text support in the first and third lectures.</p> <p>As mentioned earlier, the SELT texts were presented in Chinese, which allowed students to easily comprehend the lecture content (interview code 1.1.1). The likely reason for the similar effects of SELT and STR texts in the first and third lectures is related to the nature of these lectures. Both the first and third lectures were similar in difficulty, with the third lecture being longer. Additionally, while the first and third lectures were longer than the second lecture, the second lecture was more challenging (interview codes 2.3.1 and 2.3.2). Consequently, the SELT texts did not have a significantly greater impact than STR texts in the first and third lectures.</p> <hd id="AN0183751072-10">Student discussion</hd> <p>To analyze the effect of SELT texts on students' discussions, this study employed ANOVA to explore differences among the three groups, particularly in terms of raising questions and answering them. The results, as shown in Appendices D, E, and F, highlight the differences in discussion coding among the three groups of students for the first, second, and third lectures, respectively.</p> <hd id="AN0183751072-11">Content</hd> <p>Regarding content-related questions, no significant differences were found among the three groups in the first (<emph>F</emph> = 0.973, <emph>p</emph> &gt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.070) and second (<emph>F</emph> = 2.704, <emph>p</emph> &gt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.172) lectures. However, in the third lecture, there were differences among the three groups, <emph>F</emph> = 4.021, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.236. The post hoc analysis revealed that students in Control Group 2 raised significantly more content-related questions than those in Control Group 1 during the second and third lectures, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.05.</p> <p>In terms of answers to content-related questions, the three groups had differences in the first (<emph>F</emph> = 13.728, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.514), second (<emph>F</emph> = 4.414, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.253) and third (<emph>F</emph> = 7.187, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.356) lectures. The post hoc results showed that the students in Experimental group answered more content-related questions than the students in Control group 1 and Control group 2 in all three lectures (<emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.05).</p> <p>The analysis revealed that students with SELT text support did not raise as many content-related questions (see Appendices D, E, and F). However, the majority of the content-related questions they did raise were addressed (see Appendices D, E, and F). This indicates that students with SELT text support had a higher proportion of answered questions compared to the other two groups. In contrast, students with STR text support raised many content-related questions but answered fewer of them than those with SELT text support. Students without text support raised and answered even fewer questions, likely due to difficulties in language comprehension (see interview code 3.2.3). This difficulty not only led to fewer content-related questions being raised but also limited the number of questions that could be effectively addressed, negatively impacting the overall effectiveness of their discussions.</p> <p>The following explanation, based on interview results, sheds light on the above findings. Students without support relied exclusively on the teacher's spoken instruction, engaging with the content primarily through the auditory modality. Without the complementary aid of a visual modality, their ability to comprehend the material was diminished. According to Clark and Mayer ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref90">2</reflink>]), relying solely on the verbal channel to process information in a foreign language can be challenging. This limitation in comprehension likely contributed to their reduced participation and fewer questions during discussions.</p> <p>The STR texts provided students with additional textual support, offering an advantage over those without any support by allowing them to access both verbal and visual information channels. However, these students faced challenges in effectively translating the foreign language content (interview code 2.3.2), which introduced an added cognitive load (interview code 2.3.1). Consequently, while they asked a significant number of questions, their ability to adequately address these questions was limited. In this way, the STR texts encouraged more questioning but did not necessarily enhance the effectiveness of answering those questions.</p> <p>In contrast, the SELT texts not only improved information access but also alleviated language comprehension challenges. This dual benefit not only encouraged students to ask more questions during discussions but also significantly enhanced their ability to answer them effectively.</p> <hd id="AN0183751072-12">Vocabulary-phrase</hd> <p>Regarding vocabulary-phrase-related questions, no significant differences were observed among the three groups in the first (<emph>F</emph> = 3.241, <emph>p</emph> &gt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.199), second (<emph>F</emph> = 2.879, <emph>p</emph> &gt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.181) and third (<emph>F</emph> = 3.047, <emph>p</emph> &gt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.190) lectures.</p> <p>However, the post hoc results indicated that students in Control Group 2 raised significantly more vocabulary-phrase-related questions than those in the Experimental group across all three lectures (p &lt; 0.05). This suggests that while STR texts provided students with greater access to learning-related information, they struggled with understanding its full implications (interview code 2.3.2). In contrast, the SELT texts helped students overcome language challenges more effectively. With the support of SELT texts, students were less focused on clarifying individual words and phrases and were able to engage more deeply in content-level discussions (interview code 1.2.1).</p> <p>In terms of answers to vocabulary-phrase-related questions, the three groups had no differences in the first (<emph>F</emph> = 0.764, <emph>p</emph> &gt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.056), second (<emph>F</emph> = 1.603, <emph>p</emph> &gt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.110) and third (<emph>F</emph> = 1.714, <emph>p</emph> &gt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.116) lectures.</p> <p>This indicates that although students with STR text support had more questions related to vocabulary and phrases, they were less successful in addressing these questions. Their difficulties in understanding specific vocabulary and phrases further impeded their comprehension of the overall content (interview code 2.3.2). This challenge may also explain why the post-test scores of students with STR text support were not higher than those of students without support and were lower than those of students with SELT text support.</p> <hd id="AN0183751072-13">Detail</hd> <p>In terms of detail-related questions, there were differences among the three groups in the first (<emph>F</emph> = 3.526, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.213) and third (<emph>F</emph> = 7.225, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.357) lectures. In the second lecture, there was no difference among the three groups, <emph>F</emph> = 3.252, <emph>p</emph> &gt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.200. The post hoc results showed that the students in Experimental group raised more detail-related questions than the students in Control group 1 (p &lt; 0.05) in the first and second lectures. The post hoc results also showed that the students in Control group 2 and Experimental group raised more detail-related questions than the students in Control group 1 (<emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.05) in the third lecture.</p> <p>In terms of answers to detail-related questions, the three groups had differences in the first (<emph>F</emph> = 18.462, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.587), second (<emph>F</emph> = 6.740, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.341) and third (<emph>F</emph> = 14.878, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.534) lectures. The post hoc results showed that the students in Experimental group answered more detail-related questions than the students in Control group 1 and Control group 2 (<emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.05) in lecture 1. The post hoc results also showed that the students in Experimental group answered more detail-related questions than the students in Control group 1 and Control group 2 (<emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.05) in lecture 2. Furthermore, the post hoc results showed that the students in Experimental group answered more detail-related questions than the students in Control group 1 and Control group 2 (<emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.05) in lecture 3.</p> <p>These results suggest that SELT texts not only encouraged students to ask detail-related questions but also enhanced their ability to effectively address them. In the third lecture, which included more extensive learning content, STR texts also appeared to stimulate students to ask more detailed questions, likely reflecting the increased depth of the material. This indicates that as the complexity of the content grew, STR texts tended to prompt students to explore more nuanced inquiries during discussions. However, these texts did not significantly improve their ability to answer such questions (interview code 2.3.2). In contrast, SELT texts were more effective in supporting students as they tackled detailed questions and provided answers, leading to more active engagement in discussions focused on these specifics (interview code 1.2.1).</p> <hd id="AN0183751072-14">Broad</hd> <p>In terms of broad questions, there was no difference among the three groups in the first (<emph>F</emph> = 1.334, <emph>p</emph> &gt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.093), second (<emph>F</emph> = 2.469, <emph>p</emph> &gt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.160) and third (<emph>F</emph> = 2.845, <emph>p</emph> &gt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.180) lectures. Post hoc results showed that the students in Control group 2 raised more broad questions than the students in Experimental group, <emph>p</emph> = 0.048. In terms of answers to broad questions, there was no difference among the three groups in the first (<emph>F</emph> = 0.220, <emph>p</emph> &gt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.017), second (<emph>F</emph> = 1.052,<emph> p</emph> &gt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.075) and third (<emph>F</emph> = 2.100, <emph>p</emph> &gt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.139) lectures.</p> <p>In terms of broad questions, no significant differences were observed among the three groups of students across the three lectures as a whole. On average, students with SELT text support asked fewer broad questions than those in the other two groups. The post hoc analysis revealed a slight difference between students with SELT text support and those with STR text support, but only in the second lecture. This difference could be attributed to the smaller volume of content chosen for that lecture, which naturally limited the scope for expansive questions.</p> <p>When it came to responding to these broad questions, no discernible differences emerged among the groups across the lectures. Broad questions typically arise when students struggle to understand an entire topic or a significant section of the content. In such cases, peer responses, even if basic, can contribute to the inquirer's understanding to some extent. Unless a response contained major errors, it was generally not considered incorrect. The inherent nature of broad questions, combined with their relatively low complexity in answering, likely explains why no significant differences were observed in the responses.</p> <hd id="AN0183751072-15">Fragments</hd> <p>In terms of questions based on information fragments, there was no difference among the three groups in the first lecture, <emph>F</emph> = 0.384, <emph>p</emph> &gt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.029. In the second (<emph>F</emph> = 9.000, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.409) and third (<emph>F</emph> = 3.651, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.219) lectures, there were differences among the three groups. The post hoc results showed that the students in Control group 2 raised more questions based on information fragments than the students in Control group 1 and Experimental group (<emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.005). In terms of answers to questions based on information fragments, there was no difference among the three groups in the first (<emph>F</emph> = 1.714, <emph>p</emph> &gt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.116), second (<emph>F</emph> = 1.080, <emph>p</emph> &gt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.077) and third (<emph>F</emph> = 2.100, <emph>p</emph> &gt; 0.05, ηp2 = 0.139) lectures.</p> <p>The results indicated that students with STR text support were more likely to ask questions based on information fragments, particularly when confronted with more difficult and lengthy lectures. These fragment-based questions suggest that while students may grasp specific details, they struggle to understand the broader context (interview code 2.3.2). As a result, a higher frequency of such questions implies that students have a more fragmented understanding of the lecture content, making it difficult to form a cohesive understanding of the material.</p> <p>When it came to resolving these fragment-based questions, no significant differences were observed among the three groups across all lectures. This aligns with previous observations: although students with STR text support asked more questions, their ability to effectively address these queries was not significantly better than that of the other two groups.</p> <hd id="AN0183751072-16">Perception</hd> <p>As shown in Appendix G, students in both Control Group 2 and the Experimental Group generally felt that the interventions (STR texts and SELT texts, respectively) were useful across the three lectures. They expressed a willingness to use these texts in the future and were satisfied with the text support provided (as reflected in the interview codes under the categories "1.1 Usefulness for learning," "1.2 Discussion," "2.1 Usefulness for learning," and "2.2 Discussion").</p> <p>The results of the independent sample t-test indicated a significant difference in perceived usefulness between Control Group 2 and the Experimental Group in the second lecture, <emph>t</emph> = − 2.364, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.05, d = 0.737. That is, Experimental group had higher level of the perceived usefulness than Control group 2. In addition, there was a difference in behavioral intention between Control group 2 and Experimental group in the first lecture, <emph>t</emph> = 2.504, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.05, d = 0.785. In other words, the behavioral intention of the students in Control group 2 was higher than that of the students in Experimental group.</p> <p>The results showed that in the three lectures, students thought that SELT texts and STR texts were useful (interview codes in the "1.1 Usefulness for learning," "1.2 Discussion," "2.1 Usefulness for learning," and "2.2 Discussion" categories). Moreover, in the second lecture, students' perceived usefulness of SELT texts was higher than STR texts. In the interview, students thought that the SELT texts were helpful because it was easier for them to understand the content of the lecture (interview code 1.1.1). Others mentioned that when they did not listen carefully, SELT texts could help them know what they missed (interview code 1.1.3). Students with STR texts support mentioned in the interview that STR texts could help them confirm what they heard and help them understand lecture content (interview code 2.1.3). Both SELT texts and STR texts could help students confirm what they hear and promote their understanding of the content, which was helpful for them.</p> <p>In terms of behavioral intention, students intended to use SELT texts and STR texts in the future. In the interview, some students expressed their willingness to use supportive texts. In the first lecture, the behavior intention of students using SELT texts was lower than that of using STR texts. This may be because in the first lecture, students have just entered the learning state, and they were not familiar with how to use SELT texts (interview code: 1.3.1). In the first lecture, the SELT tool was just applied to lectures, so there were some problems that caused the lecture not to be very smooth, which was also one of the possible reasons. For example, the network connection was not stable sometimes in the beginning of the first lecture, and STR and SELT texts were displayed with some delay (interview codes 1.3.4 and 2.3.6). This problem was fixed immediately be connecting to an alternative, more stable network. Students were also not familiar with our intervention. After the first lecture, when the network connection was good, and students gradually became familiar with the SELT intervention, their behavioral intentions to use STR texts and SELT texts were not different in the consecutive lectures.</p> <p>In terms of satisfaction, the students were basically satisfied with the SELT texts and the STR texts, although the students also raised some problems with the SELT texts and the STR texts. The most frequently mentioned one was that the presentation of the texts distracted them (interview codes 1.3.2 and 2.3.4). In addition, the accuracy of the texts was not 100%, and students believed that the incorrectly recognized or translated texts had negative impact on their comprehension of lecturing content (interview codes 1.3.3 and 2.3.5). And there was a certain delay in display of the texts (interview codes 1.3.4 and 2.3.6). For these reasons, they needed to reconfirm the content. Some students said that the texts kept them behind the teacher's speech.</p> <hd id="AN0183751072-17">Conclusion</hd> <p>This study examined the impact of SELT texts on students' learning performance and discussions during lectures delivered in English as a medium of instruction in a real classroom setting. Additionally, it investigated students' perceptions of using these texts during lectures. The findings revealed that students who used SELT texts had a better comprehension of lecture content compared to their peers. These students asked fewer questions related to vocabulary and phrases but posed more questions about the details of the lecture content. This can be attributed to the SELT texts, which helped students overcome language barriers, better understand the communicated content, and concentrate on the details of the lecture. Overall, students had positive perceptions of using SELT texts during lectures and were satisfied with their SELT-supported learning experience.</p> <p>Compared to previous related research (Miró et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref91">21</reflink>]; Shadiev &amp; Huang, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref92">31</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref93">29</reflink>]; Shadiev et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref94">28</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref95">34</reflink>]), our study applied SELT in the physical classroom settings, allowing the SELT process to be both natural and synchronous. Additionally, while other studies primarily focused on using SELT to support the lecturing process (Miró et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref96">21</reflink>]; Shadiev &amp; Huang, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref97">30</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref98">31</reflink>]; Shadiev et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref99">28</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref100">34</reflink>]), our research specifically examined the impact of SELT texts on students' discussions.</p> <p>We found that SELT can be highly beneficial for student learning in physical classroom environments, particularly during discussions of lecture content. Students perceived SELT as useful for their learning, expressed an intention to use SELT texts for future learning, and were satisfied with their learning experiences. Our findings suggest that current SELT technology is capable of translating lecture content with an acceptable level of accuracy and displaying translated texts to students in real-time during lectures. This eliminates the need for educators and researchers to prepare video lectures in advance, as was common in earlier studies (e.g., translating lecture content beforehand, pre-recording lectures as videos, and embedding translated texts into the videos).</p> <p>The significance of this study lies in its application of SELT in real classroom settings, in contrast to many previous studies that used SELT to prepare video lectures in advance or conducted lectures with SELT assistance in laboratory environments (Miró et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref101">21</reflink>]; Shadiev &amp; Huang, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref102">30</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref103">31</reflink>]; Shadiev et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref104">28</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref105">34</reflink>]). This study tested the effectiveness of using SELT naturally in lectures—where speech content is simultaneously translated and the translations are instantly shown to students—on learning achievement. Additionally, we explored how SELT texts impact group discussions in a physical classroom setting, a crucial research area that has received little attention until now.</p> <p>Based on our results, we offer several recommendations for educators and researchers in this field:</p> <p>First, we recommend using SELT technology in lectures where foreign languages are the medium of instruction. Providing SELT texts to students can significantly enhance their understanding of lecture content. By using SELT, students can focus on processing the material rather than struggling with unfamiliar vocabulary or phrase translation. Peer discussions based on SELT texts can further facilitate communication, allowing students to ask and answer questions about specific lecture details, helping to clarify misconceptions and improve understanding. As a result, students' overall learning performance can be enhanced. Our findings indicate that the application of SELT in foreign language lectures is not only effective but also well-received by students, as evidenced by both test results and feedback from perception questionnaires.</p> <p>Second, we observed that both instructors and students were initially unfamiliar with how to effectively use SELT texts when first exposed to this technology. Therefore, we suggest that students receive training on how to use SELT texts. They should practice using the technology over time to better understand its strengths and limitations. Additionally, introducing students to effective strategies for using SELT texts can further improve their learning experience. Instructors also need to gain experience in teaching with SELT texts. Achieving 100% accuracy in SELT translations in a real classroom setting can be challenging due to environmental noise and the natural flow of instruction. Instructors should familiarize themselves with potential mistranslation issues and the reasons they may occur. With practice, common problems can be identified, and corresponding solutions can be developed. Thus, both teachers and students should master methods and strategies for effectively using SELT texts.</p> <p>Finally, technical issues, such as ensuring a stable network connection, must be considered, as they can significantly impact the quality of lectures supported by STR or SELT. Addressing these issues is crucial for maintaining the effectiveness and reliability of SELT in educational settings.</p> <p>Some might argue that our study's endorsement of simultaneous translation could potentially impede students' progress in developing English proficiency. In response, we emphasize that while mastering English is indeed the ultimate goal within English educational contexts, ensuring students' immediate comprehension and retention of academic material is equally important. In our study, simultaneous translation is presented as a supportive tool, not a replacement for language learning. It serves as a bridge to help students overcome language barriers, particularly those who are struggling with the language, enabling them to grasp the subject matter effectively. This support allows students to focus on content mastery, which can, in turn, provide a stronger foundation for future language development.</p> <p>As students become more proficient in English, the reliance on simultaneous translation can naturally diminish. Therefore, while we advocate for linguistic proficiency as the long-term goal, we also prioritize ensuring that no student's understanding of academic content is compromised due to current language limitations. Simultaneous translation acts as a transitional aid, helping students build the confidence and knowledge they need to eventually excel in English without such support.</p> <p>There are several limitations to this study. First, the small sample size limits the ability to generalize the research findings broadly. Second, this study explored the use of SELT texts across only three lectures, which focused on general topics. As a result, the findings may not be applicable to other types of learning content. Moreover, studying only three lectures does not allow for a comprehensive understanding of the long-term effects of SELT texts on learning performance.</p> <p>Third, although we identified several problems and proposed corresponding solutions, certain issues associated with the SELT process remained challenging to resolve. For example, mistranslations negatively impacted learners' comprehension of the lecture content. During discussions, some students recognized and addressed the errors in the translated text, realizing they were due to technical issues. While some students were able to correct their understanding through reasoning, others did not notice the errors and, as a result, misunderstood the lecture content. Furthermore, the solution strategies employed in this study require further exploration to determine their effectiveness in aiding students.</p> <p>Additionally, the SELT texts were presented to learners word by word, rather than as complete sentences. The constant adjustment and changes to the text during speech may have posed adaptation challenges for some students. Furthermore, we acknowledge that employing MANOVA would have been an ideal approach for analyzing student discussions, given the potential interaction among research variables. However, due to missing data, we were unable to conduct this analysis, representing a significant limitation in our study's methodology. Implementing MANOVA could have provided greater statistical power and deeper insights into the interaction effects among the variables of interest, thereby affecting the scope of our conclusions.</p> <p>Addressing these limitations will be crucial in future research. For instance, increasing the sample size and extending the duration of experiments could enhance the generalizability of the findings. Ensuring the quality and accuracy of translated texts is essential for improving learning outcomes. Incorporating MANOVA analysis in future studies could validate and extend our findings, offering deeper insights into the complex dynamics involved. Additionally, comparing the use of SELT texts in real classrooms versus online environments is vital, as these different settings can significantly influence learning outcomes, particularly regarding the impact of the physical classroom and peer interactions in traditional settings. Further research comparing these environments is necessary. Finally, exploring the efficacy of various text delivery modalities, such as projection or mobile devices, is recommended for future studies to optimize the presentation and effectiveness of SELT texts.</p> <hd id="AN0183751072-18">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their invaluable feedback and insightful comments during the review process. Their thoughtful suggestions have greatly contributed to the improvement of this manuscript. We deeply appreciate their time and effort in helping to enhance the quality and clarity of the research presented here.</p> <hd id="AN0183751072-19">Funding</hd> <p>This research was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of the People's Republic of China.</p> <hd id="AN0183751072-20">Availability of data and materials</hd> <p>The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available but will be provided by the corresponding author on reasonable request.</p> <hd id="AN0183751072-21">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183751072-22">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.</p> <hd id="AN0183751072-23">Appendix A</hd> <p>Coding of student discussion content.</p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Category&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Code&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Definition&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Examples&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Questions&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Content&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Content-related questions include detail-related, broad and information fragments questions&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Examples are listed in the corresponding cells below&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Vocabulary -phrase&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Vocabulary-phrase-related questions&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1. "What does this word mean, browser."&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2. "There is also a phrase, lost a fortune."&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Detail&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Detail-related questions&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;A: Friendly browser, the first browser was mentioned, founder Berners Lee. He invented the WWW, did he also invent the browser?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;B: Yes. He was the first to invent. &lt;italic&gt;(Student A wanted to clarify the specific and detailed content, and student B answered the question of student A.)&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="4" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="4"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Broad&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="4"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Broad questions&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;A: The most incomprehensible to me is this, the place to be&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;B: The place to be is what kind of environment this network has become, and it has become a business field, and that should be what it means&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;A: Where is it, what it becomes&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;B: The place to be, yes, what kind of field it has become, and it has entered the business field. &lt;italic&gt;(Student A did not understand the topic "the place to be" at the beginning. After being guided by student B's answer, student A gradually became aware of the topic.)&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="5" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="5"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fragments&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="5"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Questions based on information fragments&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;A: Regarding the development of cyberspace, "130 million" was mentioned just now. What was it? I didn't hear clearly what it was? 130 million websites or&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;B: 1.3billion, right? 1.3 billion&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;A: Oh, 1.3 billion, 1.3 billion websites or 1.3 billion people?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;B: Web page&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;A: It should be web page. &lt;italic&gt;(Student A only remembered the information fragment "130 million", but did not know what 130 million refers to. Student B answered the question of student A.)&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Answer questions&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Content&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Answers to content-related questions include answer to detail-related, broad and information fragments questions&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Examples are listed in the corresponding cells below&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;vocabulary-phrase&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Answers to vocabulary-phrase-related questions&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;A: "What does this word mean, browser."&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;B: It may be browser. It seems to be browser. &lt;italic&gt;(Student B answered the Chinese meaning of this word)&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Detail&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Answers to detail-related questions&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;A: Friendly browser, the first browser was mentioned, founder Berners Lee. He invented the WWW, did he also invent the browser?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;B: Yes. He was the first to invent. &lt;italic&gt;(Student A wanted to clarify the specific and detailed content, and student B answered the question of student A.)&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="4" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="4"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Broad&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="4"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Answers to broad question&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;A: The most incomprehensible to me is this, the place to be&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;B: The place to be is what kind of environment this network has become, and it has become a business field, and that should be what it means&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;A: Where is it, what it becomes&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;B: The place to be, yes, what kind of field it has become, and it has entered the business field. &lt;italic&gt;(Student A did not understand the topic "the place to be" at the beginning. After being guided by student B's answer, student A gradually became aware of the topic.)&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="5" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="5"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fragments&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="5"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Answers to questions based on information fragments&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;A: Regarding the development of cyberspace, "130 million" was mentioned just now. What was it? I didn't hear clearly what it was? 130 million websites or&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;B: 1.3billion, right? 1.3 billion&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;A: Oh, 1.3 billion, 1.3 billion websites or 1.3 billion people?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;B: Web page&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;A: It should be web page. &lt;italic&gt;(Student A only remembered the information fragment "130 million", but did not know what 130 million refers to. Student B answered the question of student A.)&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0183751072-24">Appendix B</hd> <p>MANCOVA results for all students in the three groups.</p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Variables&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG1&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;F&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Post-hoc&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;M&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;SD&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;M&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;SD&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;M&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;SD&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Posttest1&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;13.25&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;5.63&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;15.48&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.82&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;18.98&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.89&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;7.544*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG1&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG2&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Posttest2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;9.70&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4.63&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;11.95&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4.72&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;18.85&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4.18&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;21.55*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG1&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG2&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Posttest3&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;11.73&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4.22&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;12.98&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4.03&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;17.10&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.91&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;9.533*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG1&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG2&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>Posttest, post-test score; CG1, control group 1; CG2, control group 2; EG, experimental group</p> <p>* &lt; 0.001</p> <hd id="AN0183751072-25">Appendix C</hd> <p>MANCOVA results for students in the three groups with respect to different English abilities.</p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Variables&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG1&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;F&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Post-hoc&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;M&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;SD&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;M&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;SD&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;M&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;SD&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="9"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;Low&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Posttest1&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;13.10&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;5.86&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;15.45&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4.51&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;18.95&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.02&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.713&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG1&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Posttest2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;9.00&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;5.57&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;10.95&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;5.53&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;19.60&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4.11&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;8.853*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG1&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG2&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Posttest3&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;11.00&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4.51&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;13.95&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.39&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;18.00&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;5.15&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;5.021*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG1&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="9"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;High&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Posttest1&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;13.40&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;5.70&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;15.50&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.24&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;19.00&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4.78&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4.482*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG1&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Posttest2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;10.40&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.63&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;12.95&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.77&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;18.10&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4.33&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;8.837*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG1&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG2&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Posttest3&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;12.45&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4.01&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;12.00&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4.53&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;16.20&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.99&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.652*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG1&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>*&lt; 0.05</p> <hd id="AN0183751072-26">Appendix D</hd> <p>Analysis results of discussion content of the three groups in the first lecture.</p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Category&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Variable&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG1&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;F&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" rowspan="2" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;M&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;SD&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;M&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;SD&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;M&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;SD&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="5"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Questioning&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Content&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.50&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.22&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4.50&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.32&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4.80&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.99&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.973&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Vocabulary-phrase&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.30&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.57&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.60&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.27&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.30&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.48&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.241&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;EG&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;CG2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Detail&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.00&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.76&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.40&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.43&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.70&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.25&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.526*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG1&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Broad&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.20&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.23&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.50&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.51&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.60&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.97&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.334&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fragments&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.20&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.42&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.60&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.27&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.50&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.27&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.384&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="7"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Answering questions&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Content&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.60&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.70&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.70&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.82&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.10&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.79&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;13.728*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG1&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG2&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Vocabulary-phrase&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.50&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.85&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.50&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.53&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.20&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.42&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.764&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Detail&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.50&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.53&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.50&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.71&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.50&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.18&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;18.462*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG1&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG2&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Broad&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.10&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.32&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.20&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.42&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.20&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.42&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.220&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fragments&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.00&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.00&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.00&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.00&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.40&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.97&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.714&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>*&lt; 0.05</p> <hd id="AN0183751072-27">Appendix E</hd> <p>Analysis results of discussion content of the three groups in the second lecture.</p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Category&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Variable&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG1&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;F&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" rowspan="2" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;M&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;SD&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;M&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;SD&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;M&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;SD&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Questioning&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Content&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.50&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.18&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4.30&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.89&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4.20&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.53&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.704&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG1&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;CG2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Vocabulary-phrase&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.10&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.45&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.40&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.96&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.90&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.99&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.879&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;EG&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;CG2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Detail&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.80&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.14&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.70&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.57&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.80&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.35&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.252&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG1&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Broad&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.70&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.68&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.80&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.79&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.20&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.42&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.469&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;EG&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;CG2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fragments&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.00&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.00&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.80&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.63&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.20&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.42&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;9.000*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG1&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;CG2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;EG&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;CG2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Answering questions&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Content&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.00&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.47&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.40&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.35&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.20&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.70&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4.414*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG1&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG2&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Vocabulary-phrase&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.40&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.70&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.90&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.99&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.30&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.68&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.603&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Detail&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.70&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.68&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.80&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.92&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.00&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.49&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;6.740*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG1&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG2&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Broad&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.40&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.52&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.40&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.70&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.10&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.32&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.052&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fragments&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.00&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.00&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.20&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.42&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.10&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.32&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.080&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>*&lt; 0.005</p> <hd id="AN0183751072-28">Appendix F</hd> <p>Analysis results of discussion content of the three groups in the third lecture.</p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Category&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Variable&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG1&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;F&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" rowspan="2" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;M&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;SD&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;M&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;SD&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;M&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;SD&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="6"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Questioning&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Content&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.60&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.17&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4.40&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.51&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.80&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.62&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4.021*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG1&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;CG2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Vocabulary-phrase&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.40&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.17&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.10&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.29&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.90&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.74&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.047&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;EG&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;CG2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Detail&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.40&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.08&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.10&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.52&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.60&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.43&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;7.225*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG1&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;CG2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG1&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Broad&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.90&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.10&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.40&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.97&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.00&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.00&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.845&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fragments&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.30&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.68&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.90&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.74&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.20&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.42&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.651*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG1&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;CG2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;EG&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;CG2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="7"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Answering questions&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Content&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.70&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.95&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.50&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.18&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.80&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.55&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;7.187*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG1&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG2&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Vocabulary-phrase&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.40&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.52&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.80&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.63&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.40&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.52&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.714&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Detail&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.30&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.68&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.10&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.88&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.70&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.34&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;14.878*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG1&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG2&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Broad&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.30&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.48&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.10&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.32&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.00&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.00&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.100&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fragments&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.00&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.00&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.30&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.48&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.10&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.32&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.100&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>*&lt; 0.05</p> <hd id="AN0183751072-29">Appendix G</hd> <p>Two groups of students' perceptions of SELT texts and STR texts.</p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Variables&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;t&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" rowspan="2" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;M&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;SD&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;M&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;SD&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Usefulness1&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.88&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.51&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.92&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.84&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8722;&amp;#160;0.151&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Usefulness2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.57&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.63&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4.13&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.87&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8722;&amp;#160;2.364*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;CG2&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;EG&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Usefulness3&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.88&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.36&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4.05&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.79&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8722;&amp;#160;0.858&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Intention1&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.70&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.82&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.02&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.91&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.504*&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;EG&amp;#8201;&amp;#60;&amp;#8201;CG2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Intention2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.38&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.76&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.35&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.88&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.128&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Intention3&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.58&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.82&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.27&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.88&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.174&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Satisfaction1&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.66&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.53&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.41&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.72&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.248&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Satisfaction2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.47&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.60&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.66&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.91&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8722;&amp;#160;0.779&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Satisfaction3&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.53&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;0.58&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.65&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td char="." align="char"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.02&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;#8722;&amp;#160;0.457&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>Usefulness1, perceived usefulness in the first lecture; Intention1, behavioral intention in the first lecture; Satisfaction1, perceived satisfaction in the first lecture; * &lt; 0.05.</p> <hd id="AN0183751072-30">Appendix H</hd> <p>Interview results.</p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Intervention&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Category&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Code&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Explanation&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Extract from interviews (one example for each code)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1. SELT&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.1 Usefulness for learning&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.1.1 Facilitate understanding&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;SELT texts were helpful because they were translated into the students' native language, which helped them better understand the lecture content&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;The SELT texts were really helpful because they were translated into my native language. This made it much easier to follow along with the lecture. Whenever I struggled to understand something in English, I could just look at the translated text, and it would clear things up. It definitely helped me understand the lecture content better, especially with more complex topics&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.1.2 Exposure to two modality&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Students were able to listen to their instructor while reading the SELT texts&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Being able to listen to the instructor while also reading the SELT texts was really beneficial. It allowed me to reinforce what was being said because I could hear the lecture in English and then see the translation in my language&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.1.3 Catch up on missing content&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;When students didn't listen carefully, SELT texts helped them catch up on what they missed&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;The SELT texts were really useful for catching up if I missed something the instructor said. Sometimes I'd get distracted or wouldn't catch everything that was spoken, but with the translated text right in front of me, I could quickly see what I missed and get back on track&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.1.4 Confirm spoken content&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;SELT texts allowed students to confirm what was spoken during the lecture&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;The SELT texts were really helpful for confirming what I heard during the lecture. Sometimes I wasn't sure if I understood everything correctly, but by checking the translated text, I could make sure that I was following along accurately&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.2 Discussion&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.2.1 Effectiveness&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Our discussion was effective because the SELT texts were provided, playing a crucial role in facilitating our understanding of the lecture content&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;The SELT texts made our discussions much more effective. Since we had the translated text to refer to, it really helped us understand the lecture content better. This meant we could actually discuss the material in depth instead of spending time trying to figure out what was said&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.3 Issues&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.3.1 Unfamiliarity&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Students were unfamiliar with the affordances of SELT texts, limiting their ability to fully utilize them for learning&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;One challenge was that I wasn't very familiar with how to make the most of the SELT texts. Since it was my first time using this kind of support, I didn't really know all the ways it could help me. I feel like I didn't fully utilize the texts to enhance my learning because I was still getting used to how they worked. If I had more experience with them, I think I could have made better use of them&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.3.2 Distraction&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;The presentation of SELT texts distracted some students&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;The SELT texts could be distracting at times. I sometimes found myself focusing too much on reading the texts, which made it harder to listen to the instructor. Trying to keep up with both the spoken content and the translations sometimes pulled my attention away from what was being said, making it difficult to fully concentrate on the lecture&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.3.3 Inaccuracies&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Some translated texts were inaccurate&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;One issue was that some of the translated texts were inaccurate. There were times when the translation didn't quite match what the instructor was saying, which caused some confusion&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.3.4 Delay in translation&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;SELT texts were displayed with a slight delay&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;There was a slight delay in the display of the SELT texts. Sometimes, the translation would appear a few seconds after the instructor had already moved on to the next point&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2. STR&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.1 Usefulness for learning&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.1.1 Facilitate understanding&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;STR texts were useful in helping students understand the lecture content&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;The STR texts were really useful in helping me understand the lecture. Being able to see the spoken content written out in English made it easier to follow along, especially when I missed something the instructor said. It reinforced what I was hearing and made the lecture content much clearer&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.1.2 Exposure to two modality&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Students were able to listen to their instructor while reading the STR texts&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Having both the spoken lecture and the STR texts was really helpful. I could listen to the instructor and at the same time read the text on the screen. This dual exposure made it easier to grasp the content because if I didn't catch something the instructor said, I could just read it in the text. It reinforced my understanding by combining what I was hearing with what I was reading&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.1.3 Confirm spoken content&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;STR texts helped students confirm what they heard during the lecture&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;The STR texts were extremely useful in verifying what I heard. Sometimes when I wasn't certain I had understood everything correctly, having the text displayed on the screen allowed me to double-check and ensure I comprehended the lecture accurately&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.2 Discussion&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.2.1 Effectiveness&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Students' discussion was effective because the STR texts were provided, which played a crucial role in facilitating their understanding of the lecture content&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;The STR texts really made our discussions more effective. They played a crucial role in helping us understand the lecture content. It means instead of trying to figure out what was lectured, we focused on discussing the learning material&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.3 Issues&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.3.1 Cognitive load&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Listening to the instructor, reading STR texts in English, and translating them into Chinese simultaneously imposed a certain cognitive load on the students&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Trying to listen to the instructor, read the STR texts in English, and mentally translate them into Chinese all at the same time created some cognitive load. It felt like I was juggling too many tasks at once, which made it harder to fully concentrate on the lecture&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.3.2 Difficulty in understanding lecture content&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Understanding lectures delivered in a foreign language was challenging, particularly during more difficult lectures, even when STR texts were provided&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Even with the STR texts, understanding the lectures was still challenging, especially during the more difficult ones. The text helped, but when the material was complex, it was still hard to keep up and fully grasp everything that was being discussed&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.3.3 Unfamiliarity&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Students were unfamiliar with the affordances of STR texts, limiting their ability to fully utilize them for learning&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;I wasn't very familiar with how to use the STR texts effectively. Because it was a new tool for me, I didn't really know how to fully take advantage of it for learning. I think my unfamiliarity with the STR texts limited how much they could actually help me during the lecture&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.3.4 Distraction&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;The presentation of STR texts distracted some students&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;While the STR texts were helpful, they could also be distracting at times. I found myself focusing too much on reading the text and not enough on listening to the instructor. This sometimes made it difficult to stay fully engaged with the lecture because I was dividing my attention between the two&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.3.5 Inaccuracies&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Some transcribed texts were inaccurate&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sometimes the text didn't match what the instructor was saying, which was confusing. It made me question whether I was getting the correct information, and I had to rely more on what I was hearing instead of the text&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.3.6 Delay in transcription&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;STR texts were displayed with a slight delay&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;The transcription had a slight delay, with the text sometimes appearing a few seconds after the instructor had already moved on to the next topic&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3. No support&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.1 Issues&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.1.1 Difficulty in understanding lecture content&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Understanding lectures delivered in a foreign language without additional support was particularly challenging for students with low English proficiency, especially during longer or more difficult lectures&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;It was really tough, especially during the longer lectures or when the material was more complex. My English is not very strong, so without any extra help, I found it hard to keep up. Sometimes, I'd lose track of what the lecturer was saying, and once that happened, it was difficult to catch up. The more difficult the content, the more lost I felt, and it made the whole lecture feel overwhelming&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.1.2 Difficulty in maintaining concentration&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Maintaining a high level of concentration during lectures delivered in a foreign language without additional support was particularly challenging for students with low English proficiency, especially during longer or more difficult lectures&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;It was really hard to stay focused, especially during the longer lectures or when the content was difficult. Since English is not my first language, I had to concentrate extra hard just to follow along, and after a while, I would get mentally exhausted. Without any support, my mind would start to drift, and I'd miss parts of the lecture. The harder the material, the more I struggled to stay engaged, which made it even more challenging to keep up&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.2.3 Discussion&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Discussion was limited because it was difficult to understand the lecture content and no support was provided&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Our discussion was really limited because it was hard to understand the lecture content without any support. Since we struggled to fully grasp what was being taught, it made it difficult to have a meaningful conversation about the material. We spent a lot of time trying to figure out what was actually said rather than discussing the ideas or concepts. Without any additional help, we just couldn't dive deeper into the discussion&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0183751072-31">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0183751072-32"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Anasheva, D, Zhussupova, R, Gauriyeva, G, Tezekbayeva, G, Baltynova, A, Baigunissova, G, &amp; Yerik, G. (2020). Developing academic speaking and writing skills of university students by means of stylistic devices and expressive means under Muller's method. In Proceedings of INTCESS 2020—7th international conference on education and social sciences.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref46" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Clark, R. C, &amp; Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (4th ed.). Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref65" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Creswell JW. Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative. 2014; Pearson Education</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref50" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Darabi A, Jin L. Improving the quality of online discussion: The effects of strategies designed based on cognitive load theory principles. Distance Education. 2013; 34; 1: 21-36. 10.1080/01587919.2013.770429</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref78" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: North American edition. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref53" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Gok T. An evaluation of student response systems from the viewpoint of instructors and students. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET. 2011; 10; 4: 67-83</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref87" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Gorissen P, Van Bruggen J, Jochems W. Does tagging improve the navigation of online recorded lectures by students?. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2015; 46; 1: 45-57. 10.1111/bjet.12121</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref2" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Hwang, W. Y, Guo, B. C, Hoang, A, Chang, C. C, &amp; Wu, N. T. (2022). Facilitating authentic contextual EFL speaking and conversation with smart mechanisms and investigating its influence on learning achievements. Computer Assisted Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2095406</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref48" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Hwang WY, Li YH, Shadiev R. Exploring effects of discussion on visual attention, learning performance, and perceptions of students learning with STR-support. Computers &amp; Education. 2018; 116: 225-236. 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.09.015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hwang WY, Nguyen TH, Pham XL. Peer tutoring to facilitate cognitive diffusion of English as a foreign language learning: Using speech translation and shadowing in familiar authentic contexts. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2019; 57; 4: 901-929. 10.1177/0735633118776209</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hwang WY, Nguyen VG, Purba SWD. Systematic survey of anything-to-text recognition and constructing its framework in language learning. Education and Information Technologies. 2022; 27; 9: 12273-12299. 10.1007/s10639-022-11112-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jain R. The art of computer systems performance analysis. Techniques for experimental design, measurement, simulation and modeling. 1991; Wiley</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joe Y, Lee HK. Does English-medium instruction benefit students in EFL contexts? A case study of medical students in Korea. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. 2013; 22; 2: 201-207. 10.1007/s40299-012-0003-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kerimbayev N, Nurym N, Akramova A, Abdykarimova S. Educational Robotics: Development of computational thinking in collaborative online learning. Educ Inf Technol. 2023; 28: 14987-15009. 10.1007/s10639-023-11806-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koç M. Learning analytics of student participation and achievement in online distance education: A structural equation modeling. Educational Sciences: Theory &amp; Practice. 2017; 17; 6: 1893-1910</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuo YC, Belland BR. An exploratory study of adult learners' perceptions of online learning: Minority students in continuing education. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2016; 64; 4: 661-680. 10.1007/s11423-016-9442-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee SM, Briggs N. Effects of using machine translation to mediate the revision process of Korean university students' academic writing. ReCALL. 2021; 33; 1: 18-33. 10.1017/S0958344020000191</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin SY, Aiken JM, Seaton DT, Douglas SS, Greco EF, Thoms BD, Schatz MF. Exploring physics students' engagement with online instructional videos in an introductory mechanics course. Physical Review Physics Education Research. 2017; 13; 2. 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.020138020138</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ludvigsen K, Ness IJ, Timmis S. Writing on the wall: How the use of technology can open dialogical spaces in lectures. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2019; 34. 10.1016/j.tsc.2019.02.007100559</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller K, Schell J, Ho A, Lukoff B, Mazur E. Response switching and self-efficacy in Peer Instruction classrooms. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research. 2015; 11; 1. 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.010104010104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miró JDV, Baquero-Arnal P, Civera J, Turró C, Juan A. Multilingual videos for MOOCs and OER. Educational Technology &amp; Society. 2018; 21; 2: 1-12</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Molino A. 'What I'm speaking is almost English...': A Corpus-based study of metadiscourse in English-medium lectures at an Italian University. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice. 2018; 18; 4: 935-956</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moreno R, Mayer RE. Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2002; 94; 1: 156. 10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.156</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mukhtarkyzy K, Abildinova G, Sayakov O. The use of augmented reality for teaching Kazakhstani students physics lessons. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning. 2022; 17; 12: 215-235. 10.3991/ijet.v17i12.29501</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Niño A. Exploring the use of online machine translation for independent language learning. Research in Learning Technology. 2020; 28: 2402. 10.25304/rlt.v28.2402</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Qin Y, Wang C. Can machine translation assist to prepare for simultaneous interpretation?. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning. 2020; 15; 16: 230-237. 10.3991/ijet.v15i16.14935</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sert N. The language of instruction dilemma in the Turkish context. System. 2008; 36; 2: 156-171. 10.1016/j.system.2007.11.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shadiev R, Chien YC, Huang YM. Enhancing comprehension of lecture content in a Foreign language as the medium of instruction: Comparing speech-to-text recognition with speech-enabled language translation. SAGE Open. 2020; 10; 3: 2158244020953177. 10.1177/2158244020953177</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shadiev R, Huang YM. Investigating student attention, meditation, cognitive load, and satisfaction during lectures in a foreign language supported by speech-enabled language translation. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2020; 33; 3: 301-326. 10.1080/09588221.2018.1559863</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shadiev R, Huang YM. Exploring the influence of technological support, cultural constructs, and social networks on online cross-cultural learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2020; 36; 3: 104-118. 10.14742/ajet.6038</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shadiev R, Huang YM. Improving student academic emotions and learning satisfaction in lectures in a foreign language with speech-enabled language translation technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2022; 38; 3: 202-213</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shadiev R, Liu J, Cheng PY. The Impact of mobile-assisted social language learning activities on speaking skills and self-efficacy development. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies. 2023; 16; 5: 664-679. 10.1109/TLT.2023.3243721</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shadiev R, Sun A, Huang YM. A study of the facilitation of cross-cultural understanding and intercultural sensitivity using speech-enabled language translation technology. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2019; 50; 3: 1415-1433. 10.1111/bjet.12648</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shadiev R, Wu TT, Huang YM. The usage of speech-enabled language translation as an effective factor during the lectures in a foreign language as the medium of instruction. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 2023; 39; 20: 3996-4005. 10.1080/10447318.2022.2108957</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shayakhmetova L, Mukharlyamova L, Zhussupova R, Beisembayeva Z. Developing collaborative academic writing skills in English in CALL Classroom. International Journal of Higher Education. 2020; 9; 8: 13-18. 10.5430/ijhe.v9n8p13</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soyoof A, Reynolds BL, Vazquez-Calvo B, McLay K. Informal digital learning of English (IDLE): A scoping review of what has been done and a look towards what is to come. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2023; 36; 4: 608-640. 10.1080/09588221.2021.1936562</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sweller, J, Ayres, P, &amp; Kalyuga, S. (2011). The expertise reversal effect. In Cognitive load theory (pp. 155–170). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sweller J. Cognitive load theory and teaching English as a second language to adult learners. CONTACT Magazine. 2017; 43; 1: 10-14</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xie K, Ke F. The role of students' motivation in peer-moderated asynchronous online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2011; 42; 6: 916-930. 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01140.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yamane D. Course preparation assignments: A strategy for creating discussion-based courses. Teaching Sociology. 2006; 34; 3: 236-248. 10.1177/0092055X0603400303</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang Y, Wang X, Yuan Q. Measuring the usability of machine translation in the classroom context. Translation and Interpreting Studies. 2021; 16; 1: 101-123. 10.1075/tis.18047.yan</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhussupova RF, Kosherova KK, Dauletova NM, Dyachenko OV, Tolegen A. Implementing the cultural dimensions proposed by Gerard Hofstede for intercultural multilungial communication. Hayчный жYpнaл «BecТник HAH PК». 2019; 1: 94-103</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Rustam Shadiev; Ziheng Zhang and Yueh-Min Huang</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Rustam Shadiev Rustam Shadiev is Professor in the College of Education, Zhejiang University (China) and Distinguished Professor of Jiangsu province (China). His research interest includes advanced learning technologies for language and cross-cultural education.</p> <p>Ziheng Zhang Ziheng Zhang Zhang is Master of Science student in the School of Education Science, Nanjing Normal University (China). His research interest relates to technology-assisted learning with focus on speech-to-text recognition and computer-aided translation.</p> <p>Yueh Min Huang Yueh-Min Huang is a Chair Professor in Department of Engineering Science and Institute of Education, National Cheng-Kung University, Taiwan. His research interests include e-Learning, multimedia communications, and artificial intelligence.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref93"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1462646 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Effects of Applying Speech-Enabled Language Translation Technology to EMI Lectures on Students' Discussion Quality and Learning Achievement – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rustam+Shadiev%22">Rustam Shadiev</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5571-1158">0000-0001-5571-1158</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ziheng+Zhang%22">Ziheng Zhang</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yueh-Min+Huang%22">Yueh-Min Huang</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Technology+Research+and+Development%22"><i>Educational Technology Research and Development</i></searchLink>. 2025 73(1):229-260. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 32 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Audience Label: Education Level Group: Audnce Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Translation%22">Translation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Audio+Equipment%22">Audio Equipment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Speech+Communication%22">Speech Communication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+%28Second+Language%29%22">English (Second Language)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Learning%22">Second Language Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Instruction%22">Second Language Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+of+Instruction%22">Language of Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Lecture+Method%22">Lecture Method</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Prior+Learning%22">Prior Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Level%22">Knowledge Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Chinese%22">Chinese</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Environment%22">Classroom Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Analysis%22">Comparative Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Group+Discussion%22">Group Discussion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Positive+Attitudes%22">Positive Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Uses+in+Education%22">Technology Uses in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computational+Linguistics%22">Computational Linguistics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Technology%22">Educational Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Processes%22">Learning Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1007/s11423-024-10427-0 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 1042-1629<br />1556-6501 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: This study employed speech-enabled language translation (SELT) technology in lectures presented in English as a medium of instruction (EMI). Previous research had students viewing pre-recorded lectures with incorporated content translations in controlled laboratory settings. In contrast, students in the present study experienced live lectures in actual classrooms, where the SELT system immediately translated English speech into Chinese and displayed the translation for students. The aim was to explore the potential of SELT technology in enhancing students' understanding of the lecture content and aiding their discussions. The study used the experimental research method. Sixty university students were recruited and divided into three groups, namely, Control group 1 (students did not have any support), Control group 2 (students received transcriptions) and Experimental group (students received translations). Three lectures in EMI were carried out, and student discussion around lecture topics were arranged after each lecture. To achieve objectives of the study, students' knowledge prior and after lectures were measured and compared, and the content of students' discussion was analyzed. The results showed positive effects of SELT technology on learning achievement. That is, students who received SELT texts performed the best on the tests compared to their counterparts. The results also showed that discussion of students who used SELT texts was more efficient. Finally, the students had positive perceptions of SELT texts. We believe that applying SELT technology to lectures in EMI in the physical classroom settings was a feasible and useful way to facilitate students' comprehension of lecturing content and their discussion. Therefore, it is suggested that educators and researchers can use SELT technology in lectures in foreign languages as a medium of instruction in the physical classroom to facilitate student learning. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1462646 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1462646 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1007/s11423-024-10427-0 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 32 StartPage: 229 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Translation Type: general – SubjectFull: Audio Equipment Type: general – SubjectFull: Speech Communication Type: general – SubjectFull: English (Second Language) Type: general – SubjectFull: Second Language Learning Type: general – SubjectFull: Second Language Instruction Type: general – SubjectFull: Language of Instruction Type: general – SubjectFull: Lecture Method Type: general – SubjectFull: Prior Learning Type: general – SubjectFull: Knowledge Level Type: general – SubjectFull: Chinese Type: general – SubjectFull: Classroom Environment Type: general – SubjectFull: Comparative Analysis Type: general – SubjectFull: Group Discussion Type: general – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes Type: general – SubjectFull: College Students Type: general – SubjectFull: Positive Attitudes Type: general – SubjectFull: Technology Uses in Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Computational Linguistics Type: general – SubjectFull: Educational Technology Type: general – SubjectFull: Learning Processes Type: general – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Effects of Applying Speech-Enabled Language Translation Technology to EMI Lectures on Students' Discussion Quality and Learning Achievement Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Rustam Shadiev – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Ziheng Zhang – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Yueh-Min Huang IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 02 Type: published Y: 2025 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 1042-1629 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1556-6501 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 73 – Type: issue Value: 1 Titles: – TitleFull: Educational Technology Research and Development Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
