MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405577291 · doi:10.5430/ijhe.v13n6p45

The Effects of Using a Bilingualized Dictionary on EFL Learners’ Vocabulary

2024· article· en· W4405577291 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammed A. Hayat, Abdullah M. Alazemi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Higher Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLexicography and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVocabularyVocabulary learningContext (archaeology)PsychologyMathematics educationEnglish as a foreign languageForeign languageComputer scienceVocabulary developmentTeaching methodLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dictionaries have been integrated into vocabulary activities in different classrooms within the context of learning English as a foreign language (EFL). This study investigates the effects of using bilingualized dictionaries on EFL learners’ vocabulary. A mixed-method design that comprises a vocabulary exercise in a pretest, posttest and delayed posttest protocol in addition to interviews was employed with participants from the State of Kuwait. Participants included 52 female students, from which six students agreed to participate in semi-structured interviews to reflect on their experience of learning vocabulary. The results showed that a bilingualized dictionary significantly improved students’ vocabulary at both posttests, though the improvement decreased from the first posttest to the delayed posttest. The results could be interpreted according to the involvement load hypothesis (ILH; Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001), which is founded on three pillars: need, search and evaluation. Participants’ views and reflection on the process of learning vocabulary, particularly when using the bilingualized dictionary, combined with the findings of quantitative tests, could inform vocabulary teaching in the EFL context.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Higher EducationSame topicLexicography and Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207