Vocabulary Learning through Assisted and Unassisted Repeated Reading
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: Previous research investigating the effects of unassisted and assisted repeated reading has primarily focused on how each approach may contribute to improvement in reading comprehension and fluency. Incidental learning of the form and meaning of unknown or partially known words encountered through assisted and unassisted repeated reading has yet to be examined in an ecologically valid context. This study investigated the effects of assisted and unassisted repeated reading on incidental vocabulary learning with beginner readers over two seven-week periods. A total of 82 students who were 15–16 years old and studying English as a foreign language in Taiwan read or read and listened to 28 short texts several times. To measure the effects of each condition, a modified vocabulary-knowledge scale was used in a pre-test and post-test design. The results indicated that both types of repeated reading contributed to vocabulary learning with assisted repeated reading leading to significantly greater vocabulary knowledge. The implications for the development of reading skills and vocabulary size are discussed in detail.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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