Exploring the Impact of Interlinear vs. L1 Marginal Glosses on Iraqi EFL Learner’s L2 Vocabulary Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the impact of interlinear vs. L1 marginal glosses on the Iraqi Learning of vocabulary in EFL instructional setting. Along with all the efforts made during past 3 decades to improve the teaching of vocabulary via various strategies and techniques countywide, the classical grammar-translation method and its offspring are still widely used in most schools in Iraq. By analyzing the elicited data out of the management, treatment, and assessment of 92 pre-university students studying in two high schools in Iraq, the inquirer observed a reliable improvement of vocabulary learning in participants. To examine the effectiveness of the two glossing strategies, i.e., the implantation of L1 marginal and interlinear glosses, the results of pre and post-test of three groups were compared using One-Way ANOVA. We found reliable difference between the two groups in post-test vocabulary learning. Consequently, L1 marginal and Interlinear glosses both have come to make the learners understand L2 texts well, in comparison with the other group. Ultimately, Marginal glossing is more effective than the interlinear (text) glossing in the improvement of vocabulary development of Iraqi EFL learners.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".