MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035910635 · doi:10.5539/elt.v2n3p186

Using L1 in Teaching Vocabulary to Low Proficiency Level Students: A Case of First Year Students, Department English, Faculty of Letters, National University

2009· article· en· W2035910635 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSecond Language Acquisition and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDictationPsychologyContext (archaeology)VocabularyEnglish as a foreign languageFirst languageEnglish languageLanguage proficiencyMathematics educationForeign languageEnglish vocabularyLanguage assessmentPedagogyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many English professionals do not seem to pay much attention to the use of L1 in English language classrooms, based on the tenets that English should be taught in English to expose the learners to English which would enhance their knowledge of English and accelerate their learning. While research findings have been inconsistent in relation to this position, the results of the present study found evidence to the contrary. Using 169 students of a low proficiency level, it was found that using learners’ mother tongue (L1) to teach English as a foreign language in Laos enhanced their retention of new vocabulary items both in isolation and in context. This is possibly due to clear definitions and explanations in L1, dictation quiz and translation exercises in the classroom. This would have implications for English professionals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.330 · 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