Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has shown a link between speaking fluently and using multiwordexpressions. However, evidence on how to effectively teach multiwordexpressions is limited. This study investigates the effect of fluency-oriented classroomteaching on speaking fluency, with special attention to multiword expressions.In this quasi-experimental study, a sequence of activities believed to fosterfluency was implemented for 6 weeks in the classroom. The activity sequence wasbased on Wood’s (2009) fluency workshop report. The students’ gains in speakingfluency as well as their cued recall of multiword expressions were compared witha control group. Results show significant gains under the experimental conditionfor cued recall of multiword expressions (N = 73), but speaking fluency and thenumber of multiword expressions used in speech (n = 23) did not increase significantlywhen compared with the control group. The data also lend further supportto the thesis that speaking fluency and use of multiword expressions are positivelycorrelated. Learner feedback on the activities revealed “shadowing” to be one ofthe most favoured activities.La recherche antérieure a démontré un lien entre le fait de parler une languecouramment et l’emploi d’expressions comportant plusieurs mots. Toutefois, ladocumentation sur l’enseignement efficace de telles expressions est limitée. Cetteétude évalue l’effet de l’enseignement visant la maitrise de la langue sur la fluiditéorale, notamment sur les expressions comportant plusieurs mots. Au coursde cette étude quasi-expérimentale, une séquence d’activités qui devraient promouvoirla fluidité a été mise en oeuvre dans la classe pendant 6 semaines. Cetteséquence d’activités reposait sur le rapport de Wood (2009) sur un atelier portantsur la fluidité. Les progrès en fluidité orale des étudiants et leurs résultats à uneépreuve de rappel indicé portant sur des expressions comportant plusieurs motsont été comparés à ceux d’un groupe témoin. Les résultats indiquent des progrèssignificatifs en rappel indicé dans les conditions expérimentales (N = 73). Parcontre, l’amélioration de la fluidité orale et de l’emploi d’expressions comportantplusieurs mots (N = 23) n’était pas significative comparée à celle du groupe témoin.Les données appuient la thèse selon laquelle il existe une corrélation positiveentre la fluidité orale et l’emploi d’expressions comportant plusieurs mots. Lescommentaires des étudiants sur les activités révèlent que le « jumelage » était unedes activités préférées.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 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".