Effects of Different Types of Corrective Feedback on Receptive Skills in a Second Language: A Speech Perception Training Study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study investigated the effects of different types of corrective feedback (CF) provided during second language (L2) speech perception training. One hundred Korean learners of L2 English, randomly assigned to five groups ( n = 20 per group), participated in eight computer‐assisted perception training sessions targeting two minimal pairs of English vowels. Four treatment groups each received a different type of CF; three groups received one of three types of auditory CF and a fourth group received a visual type of CF; the control group did not receive CF. Results of pretests, immediate posttests, and delayed posttests showed that, in comparison to the control group, the groups that received auditory CF improved significantly in trained over untrained words, whereas the group that received visual CF fared less well. These results are discussed in terms of the benefits of auditory CF types, especially CF combining target and nontarget forms. Open Practices This article has been awarded an Open Materials badge. All materials are publicly accessible in the IRIS digital repository at http://www.iris‐database.org . Learn more about the Open Practices badges from the Center for Open Science: https://osf.io/tvyxz/wiki .
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 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) | 0.003 | 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 it