A Comparison of Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Iranian EFL University Students: Repeating versus Cooperating with Peers
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
Vocabulary learning and assessment are considered as the key basis for the training of English as a foreign language. However, it is time-consuming, uncertain and repetitious for the teachers to assess the proficiency of the students’ vocabulary storage. This paper reports the results of a study which aimed to investigate the effect of Repeating as a direct vocabulary learning strategy versus Cooperating with Peers as an indirect vocabulary learning strategy teaching on the improvement of word knowledge on reading comprehension skill of Iranian undergraduate students. In order to attain the aim of the research, a vocabulary test was administrated to one hundred and forty-six male and female pre-intermediate EFL university students. Ultimately, seventy-eight pre-intermediate language learners were elected and appointed into two experimental groups (A and B) based on a vocabulary pre-test. The group (A) was taught vocabulary through Using Repeating vocabulary learning strategy and the group (B) was taught Cooperating with Peers vocabulary learning strategy for the aim of improving their lexical knowledge in reading comprehension skill. In the end of the treatment period, another vocabulary test (post-test) was implemented to all the students of two groups. After analyzing the data of the study that administered through using Independent samples t-test statistics, the results showed that there was a considerable difference between the two experimental groups under analysis in terms of their vocabulary improvements. The outcomes revealed that Repeating as a direct vocabulary learning strategy can cause to higher accomplishments of word storage in reading comprehension skill of Iranian pre-intermediate EFL undergraduate learners.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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