The impact of out-of-school L2 input and interaction on adolescent classroom immersion and community-L2 learners’ L2 vocabulary: opportunities for interaction are key
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Comparing young second-language (L2) learners in different learning contexts is a valuable, but under-researched, design for determining how L2 experiences impact L2 development. This study addressed this gap by comparing the out-of-school L2 experiences of adolescents ( N = 64) learning L2-English as either a community majority language or as a foreign language in an immersion classroom, and examining how differences in L2 experience impacted English receptive vocabulary ability. Participant questionnaires yielded information on sources of L2 input and L2 interaction out-of-school. Results showed the groups were comparable for L2 input, but immersion learners experienced less interactional L2 use and also had significantly smaller L2 vocabularies. Out-of-school L2 experience explained more variance in receptive vocabulary for community-L2 participants, with more significant predictor variables than immersion-L2 participants. L2 interaction variables explained more variance than L2 input variables for both groups, indicating that, overall, interaction is a key source of L2 receptive vocabulary development.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".