The Effect of Mnemonic Keyword Strategy Instruction on Vocabulary Retention of Students with Learning Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aimed at investigating the effect of teaching mnemonic keyword strategy on vocabulary learning and retention among students with learning disabilities in Asir region, Saudi Arabia. The participants of this study included 40 students with learning disabilities studying in the ninth grade in one of the middle schools in Abha, Saudi Arabia. These students were equally distributed into two groups (20 students in the control group and 20 students in the experimental group). Vocabulary achievement test (pre-test, post-test, and delayed test) prepared by the researchers to collect the data of this study. Also, the researchers designed 10 lessons to teach the experimental group keyword strategy, while the control group did not receive such instruction. The results of the study showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the control group and the experimental group in the pre-test of vocabulary achievement, while statistically significant differences were found between both groups in the post-test of vocabulary achievement in favor of experimental group. Furthermore, there were statistically significant differences between both groups in the delayed test of vocabulary achievement in favor of experimental groups either.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".