The Acquisition Order of Vocabulary Knowledge Aspects in Thai EFL Learners
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study explored vocabulary knowledge as a multi-aspect construct by examining the acquisition order of different vocabulary aspects and the relationships between these aspects. A battery test of receptive and productive vocabulary aspects, based on Nation’s (2013) framework, was administered to 156 Thai EFL learners in tenth (n = 84) and twelfth (n = 72) grades. Two different grades of Thai EFL learners were used to better describe the vocabulary acquisition process. The results indicated that scores on the tests assessing receptive knowledge of an aspect were higher than scores on the productive knowledge tests, for both grades. However, overall, the twelfth-grade learners performed better than the tenth-grade learners. The findings also revealed significant correlations between knowledge of the different aspects. Furthermore, the Implicational Scaling (IS) analysis revealed that the two grades had distinct implicational patterns of vocabulary aspects. These results provide empirical evidence for the vocabulary acquisition pattern. The results also suggest that vocabulary knowledge is an incremental learning process and that exposure to vocabulary knowledge has positive effects on vocabulary acquisition.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.030 | 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 it