The effects of recasts versus prompts on immediate uptake and learning of a complex target structure
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
Abstract This study compared the effects of recasts and prompts on learning a complex target structure (English relative clauses). It also examined how these effects were mediated by learners’ level of language proficiency. Fifty-four high- and low-proficiency ESL learners were assigned to three groups: recast ( n = 18), prompt ( n = 18), and control ( n = 18). Both uptake and pretest-posttest measures were used to assess feedback effectiveness. Each learner met with a native-speaker interlocutor outside the classroom four times over a four-week period for the pretest, treatment, and immediate and delayed posttests. Picture-cued oral production tasks were developed and used to elicit the use of relative clauses. The findings revealed an advantage for recasts over prompts, and also showed that the two feedback types varied in their effects on uptake versus learning and also interacted differently with learners’ levels of language proficiency. Although the study was conducted outside the classroom, the pedagogical relevance will be discussed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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