Vocabulary learning: The effect of instruction type and methodological choices in the context of French as a second language
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Research indicates that lexical gains through reading are limited (Nation, 2001). Based on the literature about form focused instruction (FFI) (instruction that draws learners’ attention to the formal properties of of the target language) in second language (L2) acquisition, Laufer (2005) states that it is necessary to combine reading with FFI targeting vocabulary. The objective of this study is to examine the effects of different FFI teaching approaches and methodological choices on vocabulary learning. Nine intermediate adult Iranian learners of French as an L2 participated in this experimental multiple-case study. The experimental intervention was spread over a period of two weeks and targeted 36 vocabulary items. It comprised three experimental conditions (integrated FFI, isolated FFI and repetition) and a control condition (incidental learning through reading). Results indicate significant benefits of FFI on receptive immediate posttests. The intervening effects of recency and receptive and productive tests administration order are also evaluated.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".