The Impact of Different Instructions on Vietnamese EFL Students’ Acquisition of Formulaic Sequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper explores how various teaching methods, namely Phonology-Based Instruction (PBI) and Translation-Based Instruction (TBI), have an effect on students’ acquisition of formulaic sequences. 20 multiword expressions were taught to 48 Vietnamese EFL students from three intact classes as 2 treatment groups (PBI and TBI) and 1 control group. Right after completing the tasks, the three groups were tested on their ability to identify (Form Recognition) and produce (Form and Meaning Recall) the lexical phrases by an immediate post-test. A delayed test was administered two weeks later for better comparsion of their retention. The results showed that PBI and TBI groups significantly outperformed the control one on most of the test levels. Especially, TBI tended to be more effective than PBI in two cases as regards both Repeating and Non-repeating items. It is believed that if the results and the proposed suggestions of this research are taken into consideration, major improvements could occur in language teaching programs, leading to students’ higher vocabulary uptake.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".