Modified output of Japanese EFL learners : variable effects of interlocutor vs. feedback types
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the interactional moves of Japanese English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners and, in particular, how differently they modify their oral output depending on their interlocutor---either a peer or a native speaker (NS). By employing retrospective stimulated recall methodology, this study also explored the participants' feelings and perceptions which arguably determined their interaction patterns during a communicative task. Participants were eight Japanese first-year university students and four NSs of English. Conversations of eight learner-NS dyads and four learner-learner dyads (six hours in total) were audiotaped, transcribed, and then statistically analyzed. Learners were interviewed two days after the task completion. Results revealed that learners interacted in significantly different ways depending on whom they interacted with. Specifically, their interlocutor (peer or NS) proved to be a more influential variable than the type of feedback (i.e., elicitation or reformulation) they received. Qualitative analysis of the interview data provides comprehensive explanations for the findings.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".