The role of auditory processing in L2 vowel learning: evidence from recasts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Developing adequate second language (L2) speech has increasingly become one of the important goals in today’s globalized world. The current study set out to investigate how the provision of recasts can facilitate English vowels /i/-/ɪ/ learning by Chinese native speakers and how such learning gains resulting from recasts can be tied to individual differences in auditory processing. An experimental group of thirty young adults was engaged in ten treatment sessions of recasts lasting ninety minutes each to notice and practice English vowels /i/-/ɪ/. Their learning gains were tested through a forced-choice identification task, a controlled word-reading task, and a spontaneous picture-narrative task before and after receiving recasts. A control group of the same number of participants was also included to receive comparable sessions without receiving any recasts to check for test-retest effects. Quantitative analysis showed that recasts significantly helped Chinese native speakers facilitate their learning of English vowels /i/-/ɪ/ regardless of time and lexical context. Such learning gains resulting from recasts were significantly correlated with specific constructs of auditory processing. Namely, perceptual acuity was significantly correlated with gains from recasts in identifying L2 vowels, and audio-motor integration with gains from recasts in controlled/spontaneous production of L2 vowels. The findings suggest that recasts can serve as ideal instructional techniques of L2 vowel learning for Chinese native speakers and that the auditory processing profiles of individuals can suggest how they can benefit the most from recasts.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".