MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124701433 · doi:10.5539/elt.v5n6p135

Using the MoodleReader as an Extensive Reading Tool and its Effect on Iranian EFL Students’ Incidental Vocabulary Learning

2012· article· en· W2124701433 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sepideh Alavi, Afsaneh Keyvanshekouh

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSecond Language Acquisition and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShiraz University
KeywordsVocabularyReading (process)PsychologyContext (archaeology)Vocabulary learningVocabulary developmentMathematics educationControl (management)Incidental learningTreatment and control groupsTeaching methodLinguisticsComputer scienceCognitive psychologyArtificial intelligenceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study focused on using the MoodleReader to promote extensive reading (ER) in an Iranian EFL context, emphasizing its effect on students' incidental vocabulary acquisition. Thirty eight Shiraz University sophomores were assigned to experimental and control groups. The experimental group used the MoodleReader for their ER program, while the control group followed the traditional ER curriculum, reading a small number of pre-assigned graded readers during the semester. Both groups were given Production and Recognition Vocabulary Levels Tests before and after the experiment. T-tests showed that using the MoodleReader improved the experimental group’s incidental vocabulary acquisition, having a stronger effect on production as compared to recognition vocabulary. Linear regression analyses were also run to determine the relationship between incidental vocabulary acquisition and the learners’ use of vocabulary learning strategies. The results indicated a significant relationship between the experimental group’s vocabulary production and their use of vocabulary learning strategies.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicSecond Language Acquisition and LearningFrench-language works237,207