Working Memory, Task Type, and Chinese High School Students’ English Vocabulary Acquisition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Audiovisual learning is gaining increasing attention, with factors such as working memory and task type potentially influencing learning outcomes. This study examined English vocabulary acquisition among 110 Chinese high school English as a foreign language learners with varying levels of working memory (high and low) and different types of tasks (input-based and output-based). After engaging in an audiovisual activity, the learners were divided into six groups: a high capacity input group, a high capacity output group, a high capacity control group, a low capacity input group, a low capacity output group, and a low capacity control group. Two vocabulary tests were administered—one immediately after the tasks and the other two weeks later. Using repeated measures ANOVA, the findings revealed that (1) the high capacity learners significantly outperformed the low capacity learners on both the immediate and delayed tests; and (2) while the output groups showed better performance than the input groups on both tests, the differences were not statistically significant. These results add to the findings of existing research on second language (L2) vocabulary acquisition and provide valuable pedagogical insights aimed at improving L2 vocabulary instruction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".