A Study in Enhancing L2 Learners' Utility with Written Academic Formulaic Sequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intervention exercises have tended to be limited to restricted controlled output instudies related to second language (L2) learners’ acquisition of written academicformulaic sequences (FSs), while measurement of use has been drawn from freeroutput (AlHassan & Wood, 2015; Jones & Haywood, 2004; Peters & Pauwels,2015). The current study reports on an intervention designed to be less controlledthan previous studies and therefore closer to what learners would subsequentlybe required to produce. The intervention required a treatment group to edit targetFSs into given paragraphs. These paragraphs were similar to those they werelater required to produce and from which the data were drawn. Data drawn frompretests established that there was no significant difference in the occurrence oftarget FSs use between the treatment and control groups. Data drawn from posttestswere used to determine whether there was any significant difference in theoccurrence of the target FSs between pre- and posttests for each group. Resultsfrom the treatment group indicate that the intervention appears to have been effectivein increasing learners’ utility with the target FSs.Les exercices d’intervention ont eu tendance à être limités à la production restreinteet contrôlée dans des études liées à l’acquisition de formules académiquesécrites en L2, alors que la mesure de l’emploi a été tirée d’une production plus libre(AlHassan & Wood, 2015; Jones & Haywood, 2004; Peters & Pauwels, 2015). Laprésente étude rend compte d’une intervention conçue de sorte à être moins contrôléeque les études précédentes et donc plus près de ce que les étudiants auraient àproduire par la suite. L’intervention exigeait qu’un groupe expérimental révise lesformules ciblées pour former des paragraphes. Ces paragraphes étaient similairesà ceux qu’ils devaient produire par la suite et à partir desquels les données étaientpuisées. Les données de pré-tests ont établi qu’il n’y avait aucune différence significativedans l’emploi de formules ciblées chez le groupe expérimental et chez legroupe témoin. Les données des post-tests ont déterminé s’il y avait des différencessignificatives dans l’emploi des formules ciblées entre le pré-test et le post-test pourles deux groupes. Les résultats du groupe expérimental indiquent que l’interventionsemble avoir augmenté l’emploi par les étudiants des formules ciblées.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.207 | 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".