Noticing and Learning: Relationship Patterns
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to empirically investigate the noticeability of three corrective feedback (CF)<br />techniques (recasts, prompts, and a mixture of the two) and to determine whether such noticing predicts<br />second language (L2) development. Four groups of high-beginner college level francophone ESL<br />learners (n = 99) and their teachers participated. Each teacher was assigned to a treatment condition<br />that fit his CF style, and each provided feedback in response to errors with past tense and questions in<br />the past. While the noticing of CF was assessed through immediate recall, learning was measured with<br />picture description and spot-the-differences tasks. Inferential and qualitative analyses of noticing and<br />learning revealed varied conclusions. Statistically, a minimal relationship between noticing and past<br />tense scores was found. However, qualitatively, noticing appeared to predict gains on both targets for<br />some learners, but did not prove to be a universal prerequisite for learning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it