MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2754679021 · doi:10.25439/rmt.27589419

The social language strategies of Saudi students in an English as a second language context

2017· dissertation· en· W2754679021 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueRMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library) · 2017
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésComprehension approachLanguage assessmentEnglish languageContext (archaeology)LinguisticsLanguage transferLanguage educationLanguage industryLanguage acquisitionPsychologyPedagogyMathematics educationHistory

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This study was designed to better understand the language-learning strategies that international students, particularly Saudi students, employ in their learning of English in an English as a second language (ESL) context such as Australia. Looking at the mobility trends of international students worldwide, the majority are studying in English-speaking countries (e.g., Australia, Britain, Canada and the United States). <br><br>These countries are economically well-developed, and countries where the English language is the home language have an advantage compared with non-native English- speaking countries, as English has become an important commodity for globalisation. It is common in Australian universities and other English-medium universities elsewhere to have English language criteria for students for whom English is not the first language. These students are required to sit internationally recognised tests to meet entry requirements, such as the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) and Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). However, although these tests are designed to measure the proficiency of four language skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing), they do not indicate whether international students will be capable of adapting to the linguistic, social and cultural variations of the society in which they are intending to study. Studies have shown that English language abilities can influence the international student experience. There are also cultural and social practices of the international students themselves that could make their adaptation to the new environment easier, or inhibit them from having a smooth transitional experience. As Saudi students come from a social and cultural background that differs greatly from the societies they encounter as international students, there is a perceived need to address Saudi students’ requirements not only as international students, but also as a special group within the international student population. xviii <br><br>Recognising the unique nature of Saudi society and the needs of Saudi students, sociocultural theory has been used as a theoretical frame to guide this research. However, the research of language-learning strategies originated from a cognitive theory that explored second language acquisition and developed a number of models that examined how language learners employ different strategies in their learning. One of these cognitive approaches is the information processing cognitive model. This model underpins explanations that provide a conceptual understanding of language- learning strategies and has been applied to the classification of learning strategies into direct and indirect strategies. These ideas were developed into a widely used questionnaire, the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) to measure language-learning strategies. <br><br>The research therefore adopted a mixed-method approach and the SILL questionnaire was conducted to compare the Saudi student cohort’s use of language-learning strategies with previous research. The sociocultural frame also adopted for this research enabled the researcher to examine the learner’s social experiences in detail, as well as the cognitive processes required to learn a second language and how the social environment can mediate learning through the relationships and meaning-making that can be developed within the social context with peers and teachers. The sociocultural theory was a means to identify how learning is situated and this means that any learning is situated within a certain social and cultural context, at a particular time and place, and involving specific individuals. In this study, the two theoretical frameworks provide different insights that have been combined to explain the importance of context for a specific social group. For this, 65 Saudi participants volunteered to complete the SILL questionnaire and 18 Saudi participants (10 males and 8 females) took part in the semi- structured interviews.<br><br>The interviews emphasised the role of social strategies in this context and how they assisted the learners to adapt to the academic and social life in an Australian context. <br><br>Implications arising include the role of gender for Saudi students, increasing the presence of digital technology in the student language-learning experience and the benefits of studying English with a student cohort who have ESL. The SILL results of this study indicated that the most common language-learning strategies used by the Saudi ESL students in this context were metacognitive, social, compensation, cognitive, affective and memory strategies. However, the qualitative results generated from the semi-structured interviews informed the quantitative findings, contextualised them and explained why some strategies are preferred to others.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies, Communication savante
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,140
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,001
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0020,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,329
Écart entre enseignants0,299 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle