The Effects of Gloss Modes on Chinese EFL Learners’ Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition through Reading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vocabulary learning plays an indispensable and important role in foreign language learning. Incidental vocabulary acquisition is one of the common ways of vocabulary learning. Based on the previous studies, the present study attempts to investigate the effects of different gloss modes on Chinese EFL learners' incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading. Two important factors, i.e. gloss position (pre-text, post-text) and textual enhancement (with textual enhancement, without textual enhancement), as well as their interaction effects are examined. The results show that different gloss positions (pre-text, post-text) and textual enhancement (with textual enhancement, without textual enhancement) do not have significantly different effects on Chinese EFL learners' incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading and that no significant interaction effects between gloss position and textual enhancement have been found. Besides, students' performances on the immediate vocabulary tests and the delayed vocabulary tests are significantly correlated and delayed vocabulary retention is significantly weaker than immediate vocabulary retention. The current study sheds some light for English teachers and English textbook publishers in China.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".