L'utilisation de strategies d'apprentissage en fonction de la reussite chez des adolescents apprenant l'anglais langue seconde
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette �tude visait � d�terminer lesquelles des strat�gies contenues dans la taxonomie de O'Malley et Chamot (1990), permettent de distinguer les bons des moins bons apprenants de langue seconde (L2). Un questionnaire comptant 80 strat�gies a �t� �labor� et soumis � 310 francophones en 5e ann�e d'�tudes de niveau secondaire apprenant l'anglais. Les r�sultats de fin de semestre qui s'est tenu trois mois apr�s le recueil des donn�s ont �t� collig�s. La note de l'�preuve de production, consid�r�e plus discriminante, a servi � subdiviser l'�chantillon en trois groupes : faible, moyen et fort. Les strat�gies ont �t� examin�es � partir d'une analyse de Kruskall-Wallis. Les r�sultats obtenus indiquent qu'un nombre limit� des strat�gies m�tacognitives, cognitives et socioaffectives � l'�tude sont utilis�es de fa�on statistiquement diff�rente selon le niveau de comp�tence des apprenants. Ces r�sultats sont examin�s dans l'optique de poursuivre la validation d'un instrument de mesure des strat�gies pour les francophones apprenant l'anglais L2. The purpose of this study was to determine which strategies found in O'Malley & Chamot's (1990) taxonomy could distinguish between stronger and weaker ESL learners. A questionnaire comprised of 80 strategies completed by 310 francophone ESL learners in their fifth year of secondary school. Results of the end of semester exam - completed three months following data collection - were analyzed. The production exam results considered to be the most discriminating were used to subdivide the sample into three groups: poor, average, and strong. A Kruskall-Wallis analysis was used to examine the strategies. Results show that only a limited number of meta-cognitive, cognitive, and socio-affective strategies discriminated significantly between these ESL students at different levels of competence. The results are examined in such a way as to allow the future authentication of a strategy-measuring tool used by francophone learners of ESL.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".