Interlanguage Development of Spanish Learners: Comprehension, Production, and Interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the relationship between group interaction and interlanguage development, specifically listening comprehension and the production of target grammar forms. Two groups (39 participants in total) of first-semester Spanish students at an American university took notes on a mini-lecture, then completed a text reconstruction and listening comprehension test. The experimental group (n = 18) interactively shared notes for five minutes in small groups; the control group (n = 21) did not interact, although students were allowed to study their notes for five minutes. The experimental group scored significantly higher (p = 0.001) on the listening comprehension task. The recorded interactions, analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively, revealed significant differences between the interaction groups in the amount and types of L2 words used in the joint construction of knowledge. Quantitative analysis, conducted by means of a customized computer program that identified and counted target linguistic forms, facilitated ready comparison across interaction groups through innovative analytic techniques. This study shows that interaction may have an effect on listening comprehension and suggests that the different ways in which learners interact may explain this effect.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".