Examining the effects of two cognitive styles (field dependence vs. field independence) on learners’ mobile-assisted vocabulary acquisition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Learners with different cognitive styles (here, field dependence vs. field independence ) may learn second language vocabulary differently in different vocabulary learning settings. Although cognitive style has been widely studied in second language research, little is known about how field dependence/independence affects learners’ vocabulary acquisition in a mobile-assisted learning setting. One approach to solve this problem is to investigate the possible effect(s) of field dependence/independence on learners’ short-term vocabulary recall in a mobile-assisted vocabulary acquisition setting (here, Memrise ). To investigate such effect(s), this study adopted a pretest-posttest design involving 147 intermediate-level learners of English as a second language. Using the Group Embedded Figures Test, participants were divided into two groups: field dependent and field independent learners. For 4 weeks, both groups practiced and reinforced a set of English vocabulary, selected from the Vocabulary Level Test, through Memrise flashcards. Our findings reveal a post-intervention improvement among both field-dependent and field-independent learners, but with field-independent learners slightly outperforming their counterparts in the short-term recall of the vocabulary. Implications and recommendations for future research are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".