Explicit Teaching and Incidental Learning of Vocabulary: Where Is the Pendulum Swinging to?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research at hand compared two conditions of L2 vocabulary exposures, i.e. incidental exposure and a mixture of incidental and explicit exposures to words. Forty-five female participants, majoring in English at Al-Imam Mohammad Ibn-Saud Islamic University, Saudi Arabia participated in this research. They were divided into two groups: Reading Only (RO) and Reading Extra (RE). In the RO group, the target words were exposed only through a reading passage that they read twice, while the same target words for the RE group were inserted in the same reading passage, then explained directly by the teacher. Three levels of vocabulary knowledge (form recall, meaning recall, and meaning recognition) were assessed. The results showed that both conditions cater for vocabulary learning, however the RE group had significantly outperformed their RO counterparts. Moreover, the results showed that vocabulary learning in this study followed the general tendency starting from a receptive level to a productive level.
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 | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".