Depth of Processing in Private and Social Speech: Its Role in the Retention of Word Knowledge by Adult EAP Learners
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
Abstract: This study explored the effect on vocabulary retention of vocalizations involving three cognitive processing depths (repetition, manipulation, and generation). Eight participants in an English for academic purposes (EAP) context encountered five unknown words when working alone and five different words when working in pairs. In each condition, they studied the words from a text and dictionary, completed puzzle and question tasks, and did a stimulated recall. Tests one week and one month later assessed short- and long-term retention. The data were examined to investigate whether vocalization of deeper processing was associated with better retention, how deeper processing facilitated matches between task utterances and test responses, and which condition (solitary or collaborative) produced higher test scores. Quantitative results show that delayed test scores correlated inversely with repetition during collaboration. Qualitative analysis suggests that vocalizations were better remembered when participants deployed deeper processing to create mnemonics, connect input with L1/L2 knowledge, and express opinions. Solitary and collaborative conditions were equally effective in promoting retention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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