The Effect of Comparative FonF Structure on Learning L2 Verb Components
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study focuses on the impact of the type of form-focused instruction (FFI) on its efficiency in mastering L2forms. The hypothesis that FFI, which induces structural and metalinguistic salience on the basis of contrastiveanalysis of the learner’s L1 and L2, would be particularly effective at facilitating the acquisition of difficult L2 formswas tested in a quasi-experimental study comparing the effectiveness of two types of FFI, one with and one without acontrastive component. The contrastive FFI explicitly drew learners’ attention to the cross-linguistic differences inthe tense-aspect systems of their L2 and L1 while the non-contrastive treatment only focused on the tense-aspectsystem of the L2. The effects of these two types of FFI were assessed by analyzing the learners’ pre-test and post-testperformance on two tasks differing in the extent to which they involve the activation of explicit and implicitlinguistic knowledge: a grammatical judgment task and a controlled translation task. The subjects of the studycomprised of 43 students majoring in English language in the Iranian capital university, Tehran, 22 were selected asfor experimental group and 21 for control group randomly. The results of the study revealed that the quantitativeanalysis of the Grammatical Judgment Test (GJT) data indicated no significant effect of CFFI due to the novelty ofthe translatory technique, or the potential individual differences in the learning orientation of the learners. On thecontrary, the qualitative analysis indicated differential effects of this type of FFI according to the nature of targetform, i.e. CFFI was beneficial in raising the grammatical judgment of Persian Learners of English (PLE) regardingpresent perfect form but not effective in their judgment of ungrammatical progressive forms. In terms of translationtask, the CFFI appeared to be effective in the correct use of the target structures by PLE. This may be mainly due tothe fact that Translation Test (TT) needed explicit knowledge which was presented in CFFI and that translation is acontrastive activity in nature.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".