MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1817020557

On the Impacts of Four Collocation Instructional Methods: Web-Based Concordancing vs. Traditional Method, Explicit vs. Implicit Instruction

2011· article· en· W1817020557 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elaheh Zaferanieh, Saeedeh Behrooznia

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSecond Language Acquisition and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollocation (remote sensing)Significant differenceTest (biology)Computer scienceMathematics educationPsychologyLinguisticsNatural language processingMathematicsStatisticsPhilosophyMachine learning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the fact that collocations have been considered as one of the main concerns of both EFL learners and teachers for many years, the present study has dealt with this issue in a three-dimensional way. First, it compared the efficiency of teaching collocations both through web-based concordancing practices and through traditional methods. Second, it investigated and compared the impact of implicit and explicit collocation teaching on the students` learning. Third, it examined the effect of L1 (Farsi) on collocation learning; in other words, the effect of congruent (those collocations which have equivalent in Farsi) and non-congruent collocations. Fifty-four EFL students participated in this study. At the beginning, the researchers gave the participants a Michigan test to select those with the same level of proficiency. There were two treatments: A and B, the former investigated the effect of concordancing and traditional approaches, and the latter examined the implicit and explicit collocation teaching. In both treatments, learners were randomly divided into two experimental and control groups. There were both a pre-test and a post-test to determine the effect of treatments. Subsequently, after obtaining the data, some statistical analyses (t-Tests) were performed. The results indicated that concordancing approach was highly efficient in teaching and learning collocations, and participants’ scores learning collocations through this method were higher than learners’ scores  in traditional method (especially in learning non-congruent collocations that the difference was significant); in addition, learners’ performance in the group receiving explicit instruction of collocations was meaningfully better than those receiving implicit instruction through mere exposure. Key words: Collocation Learning; Web-based Concordancing; Traditional Method; Explicit Instruction; Implicit Instruction; L1

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicSecond Language Acquisition and LearningFrench-language works237,207