The Effectiveness of Extensive Versus Intensive Recasts for Learning L2 Grammar
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
This study investigated the effects of extensive versus intensive recasts. The focus was on the effect of feedback on learning English articles, which, as nonsalient target structures, have been shown to be difficult for many second language learners. Intensive recasts were operationalized as recasts provided on article errors only, while extensive recasts were provided on any errors including article errors. Forty‐eight adult intermediate learners of English as a second language (ESL) were divided into 3 groups: an intensive recast group, an extensive recast group, and a control group. Learners conducted 2 communicative tasks with a native‐speaker instructor and received feedback on their errors. They were pretested and posttested (immediately and after 2 weeks) using 3 different outcome measures: an oral picture description task, a written grammaticality judgment task, and a written storytelling task. The results revealed that the extensive recast group significantly outperformed the control group on the oral picture description and the grammaticality judgment tasks, whereas the intensive recast group did not. On the written storytelling task, both recast groups outperformed the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant. These findings point to the advantage of extensive recasts and challenge the assumption that recasts on single errors are necessarily more effective than recasts on a wide range of errors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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