Adjective + Noun Collocational Competence of L1 Thai Learners: A Comparative Study of a Regular Program and an English Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purpose of the current research was to determine how Thai EFL students studying in the regular and English programs use adjective + noun collocations. The second purpose was to find out the relationship between school curricula and collocational competence of adjective + noun in three tests. The participants were 30 regular program students and another 30 English program students from a private secondary school in Bangkok, Thailand. The data collection instruments included the Gap-Filling Test (Test 1), the Collocation Selection Test (Test 2), and the Descriptive Written Task (Test 3). The main findings have shown that, in Test 1, the regular program participants (69.33%) scored higher than the English program participants (57.67%). According to the findings from Test 2, there was no significant difference between the curricula and the Collocation Selection Test. For Test 3, the regular program participants used more adjective + noun collocations (279 tokens) than did the English program ones (211 tokens). The pedagogical implications were also proposed to enhance learners’ collocational competence, especially adjective + noun collocations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".