Prompts Versus Recasts in Dyadic Interaction
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: QualitativeConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.778
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 1.000
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
This study investigated the differential effects of prompts and recasts, in the context of dyadic interaction, on the acquisition of grammatical gender by adult second language learners of French. Participants were 25 undergraduate students enrolled in an intermediate‐level French course at an English‐speaking university. All students were exposed in class to a 3‐hr form‐focused instructional treatment distributed over 2 weeks and were then randomly placed in either the recast or prompt group. On two occasions outside of class, individual students participated in three different oral tasks during dyadic interaction with a native or near‐native speaker of French who, following learner errors in grammatical gender, provided feedback in the form of either prompts or recasts. Pretests and immediate and delayed posttests included two oral production tasks and a computerized reaction‐time binary‐choice test. Results of repeated‐measures ANOVA showed that both groups significantly improved accuracy and reaction‐time scores over time, irrespective of feedback type. We conclude that learners receiving recasts benefited from the repeated exposure to positive exemplars as well as from opportunities to infer negative evidence, whereas learners receiving prompts benefited from the repeated exposure to negative evidence as well as from opportunities to produce modified output.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Language Learning
- Topic
- EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Field
- Arts and Humanities
- Canadian institutions
- McGill University
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- PsychologyCorrective feedbackContext (archaeology)Class (philosophy)Second-language acquisitionRepeated measures designDifferential effectsDevelopmental psychologyFirst languageLinguisticsMathematics education
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes