MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311597397 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.811748

Corrective feedback, individual differences in working memory, and L2 development

2022· article· en· W4311597397 on OpenAlexaff
Liao Yi, Wei Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersHumanities and Social Sciences Youth Foundation, Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of ChinaJilin Office of Philosophy and Social ScienceEducation Department of Hunan Province
KeywordsAnalogyCorrective feedbackPsychologyWorking memoryTest (biology)Cognitive psychologyControl (management)Differential effectsLinguisticsMathematics educationCognitionArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study investigated the differential effects of explicit corrections, meta-linguistic corrective feedback (CF), and analogy-based CF on L2 learners' acquisition of English third-person singular form -s and whether and how individual differences in working memory (WM) mediate such effects. One hundred secondary school English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) learners at a junior middle school in inland China were randomly assigned to the explicit correction group (EG), the meta-linguistic CF group (MG), the analogy-based CF group (AG), and the control group (CG). Learners performed both an information-gap activity and a picture-description activity where their errors on target structure were treated according to their group assignment. The Untimed Grammatical Judgement Test (UGJT) and the Elicited Oral Production Test (EOPT) were used to measure learners' resulting performance. Learners' WM was measured with operation span test. Results revealed that (1) compared to the control group, all the CF groups significantly improved their performance of English third-person singular form -s over time; (2) explicit corrections and meta-linguistic CF displayed superior advantages over analogy-based CF on the immediate posttest. However, the three CF groups demonstrated no significant difference in their performance of English third-person singular form -s on the delayed posttest; (3) WM was only able to predict the effects of analogy-based CF but not explicit corrections and meta-linguistic CF; and (4) analogy-based CF was more favorable to learners with higher WM who can regulate their limited attentional resources more efficiently, whereas explicit corrections and meta-linguistic CF equalize learning opportunities for all learners with different levels of WM. The findings of this study suggest optimal, profile-matched pedagogical options for L2 learning through identifying CF conditions that cater to the needs of young learners with different levels of WM.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207