The Effect of Vowel-Recognition Training on Beginner and Advanced Iranian ESL Learners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was an attempt to investigate the effect of vowelrecognition training on beginner and advanced Iranian ESL learners. A total of 36 adult Iranian ESL learners (18 advanced and 18 beginners) who were students of various majors at Memorial University (MUN) were recruited for the study. Advanced participants had the experience of living in Canada for at least three years while beginners had lived in Canada less than six months. The study commenced with a pre-test to verify the participants’ awareness of English vowel sounds. Predictably, advanced participants were superior to beginners in terms of English vowel awareness. After the pretest administration, participants of both groups underwent a five-week vowel-recognition training course (focusing on all English vowel sounds). At the end of the vowel-recognition training program, the 80-item multiple choice test which had been once used as the pre-test was conducted again. The findings revealed that both beginner and advanced participants’ performance was improved on the second administration of vowel-identification test due to the intensive vowel-recognition training program. It is also revealed that formal instruction of English vowels had raised the beginners’ English phonetic knowledge to that of advanced learners. Moreover, it was shown that phonology of the participants’ first language (i.e. Farsi) did have an impact on the acquisition of second language phonological features.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".