Incidental focus on form and the role of learner extraversion
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
Previous studies have shown that learner individual differences have important impacts on L2 accuracy development. The present study examines a learner variable (i.e. extraversion versus introversion) and its effects on incidental focus on form. Twenty-eight ESL students in two classes (an advanced and an upper-intermediate class) and their teacher participated in the study. Data were collected through classroom observation over 7 weeks (for a total of 16 hours) and background and personality trait questionnaires. All sessions were audio- and video-recorded. The classroom data were first coded for the instances of focus on form episodes (FFEs) and then individualized post-tests were created and administered to each student after the final classroom observation. The results revealed that more extraverted learners were more likely to engage in FFEs in the advanced class and that more introverted learners produced more successful uptake in the upper-intermediate class. The findings partially support the role of this learner variable in learners’ participation in FFEs and its effects on immediate L2 improvement.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it