Relationships of International Students’ L2 Vocabulary, Receptive Skills, and Strategy Use: A Pathway College Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A considerable amount of studies has been done on the relationship of L2 vocabulary and reading/listening, strategy use and reading/listening, and vocabulary and strategy use in different contexts among different levels of learners; however, little has been known about the relationships among all these variables with the same cohort of learners and particularly with international students including Asian students in a UK pathway college context. Furthermore, existing research on these relationships is inconclusive. This paucity and inconclusiveness invoke this attempt to understand the relationships of all these variables among pre-sessional international students. Quantitative data were collected from 31 Pre-Undergraduate (PU) and Pre-Masters (PM) international students via Strategy Inventory of Language Learning (SILL; Oxford, 1990), IELTS-style reading and listening tests, and an academic vocabulary test designed from Quizlet for class test. Results showed that there was no significant relation of vocabulary with reading and listening among the whole cohort of students and the PU group; however, there was a significant relationship between reading and listening among the whole cohort and the PU group. Among the PM group only, significant relationship was seen between vocabulary and reading. Social strategy category and some individual strategies were significantly correlated with reading among the whole cohort, and the significant correlation of social strategy category and reading was also true for the PM group. While memory strategies were significantly, positively correlated with vocabulary among the PM group, affective strategies were negatively correlated vocabulary among the PU group. Independent sample t-test revealed significant difference between the PM and PU groups on their vocabulary knowledge. Although the pattern of the relationships revealed was not always clear among these diverse international students, the findings could inform teaching L2 receptive skills with regards to vocabulary and strategies, with a view to facilitate learning of English as an L2 in a target language context.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".