Applications of word lists in second language learning and teaching
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although word lists have generated a great deal of attention from researchers, there has been no comprehensive review of the applications of word lists in second language learning and teaching. This article reviews the development, validation, and applications of 50 word list studies that were published and discussed in major international peer-reviewed Applied Linguistics and TESOL journals from 2013 to 2023. It shows that the methodology of word list development and validation has become more sophisticated and word list developers can see many potential applications of their lists in research and pedagogy. However, most applications of recently developed word lists have been restricted to the BNC/COCA lists developed by Paul Nation, and little is known about the degree to which most word lists have been used in pedagogical contexts. Our review indicates several directions for future research on word lists, including exploring the impact of published lists on pedagogy, replicating word list studies for learners in underrepresented contexts, and developing sustainable, low-cost methods of developing word lists to allow teachers and learners to create lists serving their own needs.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 it