Perceptions of L1 Use as a Pre-listening Activity Relative to L2 Proficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine students’ perceptions of L1 translations when learning L2 vocabulary as a pre-listening activity and to investigate their listening comprehension test performance. Higher and lower level Japanese university students were required to learn vocabulary as a pre-listening activity. Both levels were divided into two groups. One group was asked to learn vocabulary items using L1 translations, whereas the other used L2 definitions. Previous research has suggested that using L1 translations is preferable for lower level students. However, the results of the present study contradict the findings of previous studies. The present study shows that both higher and lower level students tended to prefer L2 definitions when learning L2 vocabulary, and that this tendency was stronger among lower level students. Moreover, regarding listening comprehension test performance, the results show that higher level students who used L1 translations consistently outperformed those who used L2 definitions, although lower level students did not show such consistency.
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 | 0.000 | 0.103 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".