Learning English L2 vocabulary with clickers
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
This study explored the use of clickers (i.e., a polling technology) as a tool to promote the acquisition of second language (L2) vocabulary. A growing body of literature on the pedagogical effectiveness of clickers in an L2 context has revealed that clickers can foster learning gains (e.g., Reynolds & Taylor, 2020). However, the extent to which clickers play a role in learning gains compared to other pedagogical approaches lacks consensus; in addition, most research has focused on adult learners and has taken place in large classrooms (Caldwell, 2007). \n \nTo address these limitations, the current research investigated the effects of clickers on L2 vocabulary acquisition in a K-12 educational setting. Two intact groups comprised of 61 Grade 8 students (age range: 13-14) learning English as a second language (ESL) in Montréal (Québec) were assigned to a vocabulary acquisition treatment: while the Clicker Group (CG: n = 31) received instruction via clickers, the Non-Clicker Group (NCG: n = 30) was treated via hand-raising without the target technology. The target vocabulary for the experiment constituted 30 low-frequency words extracted from James and the Giant Peach, a novel by Roald Dahl. \n \nThe pedagogical effectiveness of clickers on participants’ acquisition of the target vocabulary was measured via pretests, posttests and delayed posttests. Overall, the results indicate that the pedagogical use of clickers contributed to L2 vocabulary acquisition, but that the learning gains are comparable in both groups. The discussion of the findings highlights the role of individual differences among members (i.e., some participants improved significantly more than others) and the implications for L2 teaching/learning.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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