A Study on the Effects of Chinese EFL Learners’ English Proficiency and Involvement Load on Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of EFL learners’ English proficiency and involvement load induced by tasks on incidental vocabulary acquisition are observed in this study. 163 students of non-English majors in a local university of China were divided into two groups of different English proficiency according to their scores of College English Test Band 4 (CET-4). The students in each group were randomly assigned one of three tasks (reading-for-comprehension, blank-filling, and writing) involving 10 target words. Fifteen minutes after they finished the task, they were required to take an immediate vocabulary test about the target words. Two weeks later, they were asked to take the same kind of vocabulary test to examine their delayed memory of the target words. All of the students did not know about the vocabulary tests beforehand. The results show that: in the process of immediate incidental vocabulary acquisition, both learners’ English proficiency and involvement load have a main effect on immediate memory, but the interactive effect of these two factors on incidental vocabulary acquisition is not significant; in the vocabulary retention test, learners’ English proficiency does not have a significant main effect on delayed memory, but the main effect of involvement load is still significant; at the same time, the interactive effect of these two factors is still not significant.
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 | 0.045 |
| 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 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".