An Investigation into the Factors Affecting the Use of Language Learning Strategies by Persian EFL Learners.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As part of a larger study (Rahimi, 2004), this study investigates the use of language learning strategies by post-secondary level Persian EFL learners. Particular attention is paid to the variables affecting learners’ choice of strategies, and the relationship, if any, between these variables and learners’ patterns of strategy use. Data were gathered from 196 low-, mid- and high proficiency learners using such instruments as the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL; Oxford, 1990), and two questionnaires of attitude and motivation (adapted from Laine, 1988) and learning style (Soloman and Felder, 2001). The results of the study point to proficiency level and motivation as major predictors of the use of language learning strategies among this group of learners. Gender, on the other hand, is not found to have any effect while years of language study appear to negatively predict strategy use. The difference between learners’ use of the SILL’s six major strategy categories is found to be significant and indicates learners’ preference for metacognitive strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 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".