Improving English Learners’ Productive Collocation Knowledge: The Effects of Involvement Load, Spacing, and Intentionality
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 article reports on a classroom-based experiment that tested the effects of threevocabulary teaching constructs (involvement load, spacing, and intentionality)on the learning of English verb-noun collocations—for example, “shelve a plan.”Laufer and Hulstijn’s (2001) “involvement load” predicts that the higher themotivational-cognitive load of a task, the more effectively it promotes word retention.“Spacing” refers to the advantage of spreading out learning opportunitiesfor words as opposed to massing them. “Intentionality” comprises two word processingmodes: intentional learning (posttest announced) and incidental learning(posttest unannounced), where the former is claimed to outperform the latter.The constructs were integrated into an intervention study with 59 adolescent L1Swedish learners of English in within- and between-subjects designs. Learnersprocessed target items three times when performing tasks that operationalized theconstructs. Three posttests of productive knowledge of target items were administered.Statistical analyses of gain scores show that neither involvement load norspacing had a significant positive impact on learning gains. Significant effectswere found on three measures for intentional learning when compared to incidentallearning. The findings are discussed in relation to previous research and theirimplications for English language teaching (ELT).Cet article rend compte d’une expérience basée en salle de classe et qui évalueles effets de trois concepts pédagogiques en enseignement du vocabulaire (charged’implication, espacement et intentionnalité) sur l’apprentissage d’expressions figéesen anglais consistant d’un verbe et d’un nom. La « charge d’implication » deLaufer et Hulstijn (2001) prédit que plus la charge motivationnelle et cognitived’une tâche est élevée, plus elle favorise la rétention des mots. « L’espacement »fait référence à l’avantage de répartir les occasions d’apprentissage des mots plutôtque de les rassembler. « L’intentionnalité » comprend deux modes de traitementdes mots: l’apprentissage intentionnel (post-test annoncé) et l’apprentissage accidentel(post-test pas annoncé), le premier supposément donnant de meilleursrésultats que le second. Ces concepts ont été intégrés dans une étude d’interventionimpliquant 59 adolescents suédois qui apprenaient l’anglais et suivant un modèle àmesures répétées et un modèle inter-sujets. Les participants ont traité des élémentscibles trois fois en accomplissant des tâches qui opérationnalisaient les concepts.Trois post-test portant sur des connaissances productives des éléments cibles ont eulieu. Des analyses statistiques des notes ont indiqué que ni la charge d’implicationni l’espacement n’avaient eu un impact positif significatif sur les notes. Trois mesures de l’apprentissage intentionnel comparé à l’apprentissage accidentel ont révélé des effets significatifs. Nous discutons des résultats par rapport à la recherche antérieure et en fonction de leurs incidences sur l’enseignement de l’anglais.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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